On Sat, 27 Jul 2019, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> Today I was hit with 226 ports needing update. With one exception, all
> were the result of the bump or the default gcc version to 9.1. The
> problem is that 9.1 was not installed first, so over 43 of these ports
> were rebuilt with the exact same comp
Am 28.07.19 um 01:26 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
> Today I was hit with 226 ports needing update. With one exception, all were
> the result of the bump or the default gcc version to 9.1. The problem is
> that 9.1 was not installed first, so over 43 of these ports were rebuilt
> with the exact same compi
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 7:06 AM Stefan Esser wrote:
> Am 28.07.19 um 01:26 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
> > Today I was hit with 226 ports needing update. With one exception, all
> were
> > the result of the bump or the default gcc version to 9.1. The problem is
> > that 9.1 was not installed first, so
Stefan Esser writes:
> Am 28.07.19 um 01:26 schrieb Kevin Oberman:
> > Today I was hit with 226 ports needing update. With one
> > exception, all were the result of the bump or the default gcc
> > version to 9.1. The problem is that 9.1 was not installed first,
> > so over 43 of these ports
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> The description of the commit states:
>
> This includes ports
> - with USE_GCC=yes or USE_GCC=any,
> - with USES=fortran,
> - using Mk/bsd.octave.mk which in turn features USES=fortran, and
> - with USES=compiler specifying openmp, nestedfct, c11, c+
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday 28 July 2019 20:56, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> > The description of the commit states:
> > This includes ports
> >
> > - with USE_GCC=yes or USE_GCC=any,
> > - with USES=fortran,
> > - using Mk/bsd.octave
Gerald,
Thanks for our excellent explanation. I must admit that I did not think
about various archs. So, now I understand why the PORTREVISION was bumped
and that I don't need to go back and build the ports that were rebuilt
prior to the gcc9-9.1 upgrade. I trust tat portmaster did hte right thing
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:52 AM Kevin Oberman wrote:
> Today I tried updating llvm80 to the newest version, 8.0.1, using pkg. I
> discovered that the package for llvm80 is built using the deprecated and
> soon to expire sambe47. Last week, in preparation for the expiry , I
> updated to samba48 a
