Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#48293 closed enhancement (duplicate)
cppcheck using cxx11 PortGroup
| Reported by: | xythobuz@… | Owned by: | macports-tickets@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | |
| Keywords: | maintainer haspatch | Cc: | Ionic (Mihai Moldovan), tommaso.vinci@… |
| Port: | cppcheck |
Description
As discussed in Ticket #48247, here is the patch from ionic to start using the cxx11 PortGroup in cppcheck.
Attachments (1)
Change History (4)
Changed 9 years ago by xythobuz@…
| Attachment: | cppcheck.diff added |
|---|
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by Ionic (Mihai Moldovan)
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by xythobuz@…
I don't have any commit rights, so I thought this is the correct way of getting this change committed? It won't change the functionality, but enhances readability of the PortFile. Also, I was told to create a separate Ticket for each change I want to commit for the port I'm maintaining.
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by Ionic (Mihai Moldovan)
| Resolution: | → duplicate |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
No, not in this case. I've given you a patch, which you as a maintainer can either accept or deny in the other ticket. If you accept, I commit, otherwise I don't (and you'll have to come up with something else.)
A new ticket is appropriate if you had a patch for something else entirely - like updating the port to a newer version, adding a variant or changing dependencies or even whitespace changes that don't influence the user's initially reported failure.
Marking as dup of #48247 and committing the patch there.
Okay... thanks for your response, but why did you open another ticket?
Do you want to resolve the user's problem some other way? The
cxx PortGroupwill only terminate if it detectslibstdc++, but not actually help in making the port installable. If you don't plan on ripping all the C++11 stuff out, this ticket is really a duplicate of #48247 and should be closed as that.