On 2018-11-28 10:00 , Randolph M. Fritz wrote:
> At some point, the license has to be shown and the question has to be
> asked.
Can you point us to where this requirement is stated? It's not part of
the standard BSD license.
- Josh
It failed to build for me:
:info:build ld: library not found for -lf2c
:info:build collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
:info:build 1 error generated.
:info:build make: *** [obj/darwin/direct.o] Error 1
:info:build make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
:info:build make: Leaving director
On Nov 27, 2018, at 16:58, Mark Brethen wrote:
> A couple of remaining thoughts I had:
>
> 1. The BSD port uses metis4 whereas macports metis distro is at v5. I didn’t
> check to see which one it used.
taucs builds with "-lmetis", in other words, libmetis.dylib, whatever version
that may be
At some point, the license has to be shown and the question has to be
asked. Perhaps the way to do it is to have a separate small port that gets
license acceptance and store the result somewhere, and then have the main
portfile check for the acceptance.
--
Randolph M. Fritz || +1 206 659-8617 || r
A couple of remaining thoughts I had:
1. The BSD port uses metis4 whereas macports metis distro is at v5. I didn’t
check to see which one it used. If it builds alright, I assume it will work.
2. Calculix-ccx requires taucs at build. Should it matter if the static library
exists, or not?
Thanks
Mark,
I still think it would be easier to patch the build system to build the dynamic
library and link the programs with it, rather than trying to call individual
makefile targets from the portfile.
After looking at the build system for awhile, I see now why this project's
build system is so d
On 26.11.18 03:26, Randolph M. Fritz wrote:
> No, you can download it. The license is an old BSD license, so it's
> pretty good, but users are required to read and accept it. Is there any
> way to accommodate this, or do I simply have to say that we can't
> distribute a portfile for the system?
Ev
Nils,
I tried to put together a quick Portfile for gitlab-runner. The included
Makefile still insists on downloading rebuild docker files
Judging by the FreeBSD port[2], that seems to be unavoidable.
> On Nov 27, 2018, at 1:19 PM, Nils Breunese wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I’d like to be able to in
Hello,
I’d like to be able to install GitLab Runner [0] via MacPorts. I’ve already
created a Portfile [1] that installs this single binary tool, but I’ve been
informed this tool should be built from source by the Portfile. I’m not
familiar enough with Go builds to create the initial Portfile an
