I think someone is(was) working on a more general new portgroup, that would handle things like this. It is something we need, rather than ports individually blacklisting compilers to achieve the same. I suggst you bring this up on the devel mailing list, to see where things current stand.
That would be a good approach, if we were starting from scratch now and the cxx11 portgrpup did not exist. However, as it does, and as it is used in a lot of places changing this to a different named PG would be a pain, as it implies touching a huge lot of ports. For that reason I would suggest a slight alternative apporach, which is to leave cxx11 as it is, and add cxx14 and cxx17 PGs, that internally just use cxx11, but set the tighter compiler selections as appropriate. Basically, what ports are doing now, just in a centralised place.
To improve your reasoning, we could think on creating a more generalised one, like cxx, and create cxx11 cxx14 and cxx17 as "variant". this is more neat and clear in the long term. I searched on trac but I didn't find anything cxx related; can you search on -dev history because I have only the last three weeks? thanks
I don't think PGs can have 'variants'. Might be wrong, but I suspect the easiest approach is exactly what I describe. In fact, I am playing with something just now that does exactly this. In any case, as long as this is not seen by the ports, this is an 'internal implementation detail' and can be changed later on.
I don't have a history of dev messages to search. you can find the web archives from the links at
Unfortunately, whilst that is now merged into master, its not in a released version of base, which is why no ports yet can use compiler.cxx_standard....
cjones051073
Chris Jones
I also need c++14 for mu. what do you think to create a new portgroup like cxx11?