port listed to be upgraded but not upgraded

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Sep 9, 2018, at 23:21, Joshua Root wrote:

> On 2018-9-10 13:23 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> It is fine for ports to offer different versions to different platforms. Up to now, a "platform" was the combination of an operating system name, major version number, and architecture (PowerPC or Intel). It has been proposed that the C++ standard library should be added to that definition. Code implementing that has already been added to portindex. We have not yet deployed changes to the server to generate separate indexes per C++ standard library, and we have not modified MacPorts base to look for a different index on the server depending on the C++ standard library. We should make both of those changes.
> 
> Oh sure, you can multiply the number of portindexes easily enough to
> reflect one more configuration choice. It's not a sustainable design
> direction though.

We're only talking about adding a libc++ index for 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8. We're not talking about adding further indexes for other reasons.