After building the universal gcc48 and compiling for the i386 target, I was
disappointed to see that the library didn't work on an older MacBook I had
lying around :-(
I think I'll abandon support for anything other than 64 bit OS X.
--
Sam
On 25 Aug 2013, at 18:22, Sam Halliday
the macports distro of gcc in order to get fortran support.
Could somebody please show me how to build universal binaries that work on
the four targets: PPC/Intel 32/64?
I presume I'll need to get this fixed:
$ file /opt/local/lib/libgcc/libgfortran.3.dylib
/opt/local/lib/libgcc/libgfortran.3
On Aug 25, 2013, at 4:21, Samuel Halliday sam.halli...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks all,
In order to build a ppc gfortran app, I need the Xcode 3 PPC compiler (I
think that's what a lot of these comments have been about). There is a SO
thread about how to do this:
Ok, thanks.
In that case I'll abandon the idea of supporting PPC. It sounds like there
would be too much tweaking of mac ports above and beyond the SO instructions
for obtaining a PPC SDK.
Btw, I don't really care about LIPO. I would be happy with four binaries of my
project.
Kind regards,
On Aug 25, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Sam Halliday sam.halli...@gmail.com wrote:
In that case I'll abandon the idea of supporting PPC. It sounds like there
would be too much tweaking of mac ports above and beyond the SO instructions
for obtaining a PPC SDK.
Btw, I don't really care about LIPO. I
Hi all,
I'm using the macports distro of gcc in order to get fortran support.
Could somebody please show me how to build universal binaries that work on the
four targets: PPC/Intel 32/64?
I presume I'll need to get this fixed:
$ file /opt/local/lib/libgcc/libgfortran.3.dylib
/opt/local/lib
On Aug 24, 2013, at 07:29, Samuel Halliday wrote:
I'm using the macports distro of gcc in order to get fortran support.
Could somebody please show me how to build universal binaries that work on
the four targets: PPC/Intel 32/64?
I presume I'll need to get this fixed:
$ file /opt
universal builds in my own
projects?
--
Sam
On 24 Aug 2013, at 16:00, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
On Aug 24, 2013, at 07:29, Samuel Halliday wrote:
I'm using the macports distro of gcc in order to get fortran support.
Could somebody please show me how to build universal
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Samuel Halliday wrote:
Thanks Ryan,
Assuming my Mountain Lion can actually build PPC binaries,
It cannot. You really need to use Snow Leopard if you want to build
for x86_64, i386 and ppc (conditionally Leopard, but support for
x86_64 is not quite mature there
On Aug 24, 2013, at 10:08, Samuel Halliday wrote:
Assuming my Mountain Lion can actually build PPC binaries,
I'd be surprised if it could. I don't think Apple is including PowerPC
compilers anymore.
your solution would appear to want to build universal bins for everything on
my system.
On Aug 24, 2013, at 10:23, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
It cannot. You really need to use Snow Leopard if you want to build
for x86_64, i386 and ppc (conditionally Leopard, but support for
x86_64 is not quite mature there yet). I don't know about ppc64, but
basically nobody uses those.
Leopard
On 24 Aug 2013, at 16:24, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
what command line arguments do I use to get universal builds in my own
projects?
add all the -arch flags (e.g. -arch x86_64 -arch i386 -arch ppc64 -arch
ppc)
I'm guessing these instructions are for the apple gcc? Because doing this with
the
In article b673f8f2-3c21-4ea7-b5f7-2b33fd895...@gmail.com,
Samuel Halliday sam.halli...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 Aug 2013, at 16:24, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
what command line arguments do I use to get universal builds in my own
projects?
add all the -arch flags (e.g. -arch x86_64 -arch i386
On Aug 24, 2013, at 8:00, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
On Aug 24, 2013, at 07:29, Samuel Halliday wrote:
I'm using the macports distro of gcc in order to get fortran support.
Could somebody please show me how to build universal binaries that work on
the four targets
Second on the buildbot + universal suggestion.
That was my big disappointment with building Virtualbox- now almost every
package has going to have to be built from source, rather than installed
from binary from now on.
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Bradley Giesbrecht
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 5:50 AM, John Ruschmeyer jrusc...@gmail.com wrote:
Second on the buildbot + universal suggestion.
That was my big disappointment with building Virtualbox- now almost every
package has going to have to be built from source, rather than installed
from binary from now
I'm a fan of using MacPorts for many things as much as the next guy, but
why not just use the official builds of VirtualBox? (I went down the
same path a while back, and when I saw MP start to rebuild all the deps
+universal I aborted and said I can download one thing from Oracle and
live with
A further question:
Does the virtualbox-guest-additions port install the additions on the
current system (i.e., a VM of Mac OS X) or install the multi-platform .iso
file?
Thanks...
JR
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Chris Jones jon...@hep.phy.cam.ac.ukwrote:
I'm a fan of using MacPorts
On May 16, 2013, at 10:16 AM, John Ruschmeyer wrote:
A further question:
Does the virtualbox-guest-additions port install the additions on the
current system (i.e., a VM of Mac OS X) or install the multi-platform .iso
file?
This might answer your question:
$ port distfiles
On May 16, 2013, at 16:33, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
On May 16, 2013, at 10:16 AM, John Ruschmeyer wrote:
A further question:
Does the virtualbox-guest-additions port install the additions on the
current system (i.e., a VM of Mac OS X) or install the multi-platform .iso
file?
This
On May 16, 2013, at 05:50, John Ruschmeyer wrote:
Second on the buildbot + universal suggestion.
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/35897
That was my big disappointment with building Virtualbox- now almost every
package has going to have to be built from source, rather than installed from
I decided to install Virtualbox via MacPorts as opposed to installing the
binary from Oracle. What has happended, though, is that MacPorts has
started recompiling dependencies with +Universal (currently on glib2).
What I don't understand is why this is necessary, particularly since
Virtualbox
On May 15, 2013, at 15:38, John Ruschmeyer wrote:
I decided to install Virtualbox via MacPorts as opposed to installing the
binary from Oracle. What has happended, though, is that MacPorts has started
recompiling dependencies with +Universal (currently on glib2).
What I don't understand
On May 15, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On May 15, 2013, at 15:38, John Ruschmeyer wrote:
I decided to install Virtualbox via MacPorts as opposed to installing the
binary from Oracle. What has happended, though, is that MacPorts has started
recompiling dependencies with
this:
*# Options for Universal Binaries (+universal variant)*
*
*
*# MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET*
*universal_target10.4*
*
*
*# the SDK sysroot to use *
*universal_sysroot /Xcode3_0/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk*
*
*
*# machine architectures*
*universal_archs i386
On 2009-01-24 19:25:51 +0100, Harry van der Wolf wrote:
It is something completely different. Most linux, netbsd and freebsd
packages rely on X11. MacOSX has support for x11 but the native
windowing system of MacOSX is aqua. Using the -x11 option means that
you don't build for X11. An
Harry van der Wolf wrote:
2009/1/25 Joshua Root j...@macports.org mailto:j...@macports.org
Timothy Lee wrote:
Again- my variants.conf only contains +universal and my
macports.conf as
the variants_conf path set correctly - yet I still see the
deployment is
being
for Universal Binaries (+universal variant)*
*
*
*# MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET*
*universal_target10.4*
*
*
*# the SDK sysroot to use *
*universal_sysroot /Xcode3_0/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk*
*
*
*# machine architectures*
*universal_archs i386*
Again
tim...@rochester.rr.com wrote:
If I hand edit the /opt/local/share/macports/Tcl/port1.0/portmain.tcl file,
will it be 'merged' automatically the next time macports version is bumped or
is it a simple 'rm' and then 'cp' the new file in?
The file is overwritten on upgrade, but that won't be an
2009/1/26 Vincent Lefevre vincent-opd...@vinc17.org
On 2009-01-24 19:25:51 +0100, Harry van der Wolf wrote:
It is something completely different. Most linux, netbsd and freebsd
packages rely on X11. MacOSX has support for x11 but the native
windowing system of MacOSX is aqua. Using the
Ryan-
Thanks for the tip on not adding the '/' to the --prefix - that fixed
the problem.
In regards to the +universal variants - my universal_target only
contains i386 as suggested by Josh. My other settings look like this:
# Options for Universal Binaries (+universal variant
contains i386 as suggested by Josh. My other settings look like
this:
# Options for Universal Binaries (+universal variant)
# MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET
universal_target10.4
# the SDK sysroot to use
universal_sysroot /Xcode3_0/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk
# machine architectures
(Sorry, my previous mail was a direct mail and not to the macports users
group).
Why don't you use the ready available universal dmg available for OSX (
http://musicbrainz.org/ftpmirror/pub/musicbrainz/users/robert/picard-0.9.0beta1-build2.dmg
)
Harry
Timothy Lee wrote:
Ryan-
Thanks for the tip on not adding the '/' to the --prefix - that fixed
the problem.
In regards to the +universal variants - my universal_target only
contains i386 as suggested by Josh. My other settings look like this:
*# Options for Universal Binaries (+universal
2009/1/24 Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org
On Jan 23, 2009, at 09:11, tim...@rochester.rr.com
tim...@rochester.rr.com wrote:
Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
Timothy Lee wrote:
Do you know if its possible for me (on leopard) to build x86 code (all
my macports ports) that will
Thanks for the reply Harry-
I'm fairly sure that I will need to lipo together the builds for
Musicbrainz' Picard.
So - in your experience what are all the options that I must set after
a fresh src install to have a 10.5 setup building binaries for 10.4?
Also, does anyone know how UB deals
On Jan 24, 2009, at 3:36 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 23, 2009, at 09:11, tim...@rochester.rr.com tim...@rochester.rr.com
wrote:
Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
Timothy Lee wrote:
Do you know if its possible for me (on leopard) to build x86 code
(all
my macports ports) that will
Timothy Lee wrote:
On Jan 24, 2009, at 3:36 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 23, 2009, at 09:11, tim...@rochester.rr.com
tim...@rochester.rr.com wrote:
Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
Timothy Lee wrote:
Do you know if its possible for me (on leopard) to build x86 code (all
my
2009/1/24 Timothy Lee tim...@rochester.rr.com
Thanks for the reply Harry-I'm fairly sure that I will need to lipo together
the builds for Musicbrainz' Picard.
So - in your experience what are all the options that I must set after a
fresh src install to have a 10.5 setup building binaries for 10.4?
Harry-
You made reference to adding the -x11 tag to your variants.conf.
By doing this, do you force macports to use Apple's X11? Or is it
something else entirely different?
thanks
On Jan 24, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Harry van der Wolf wrote:
2009/1/24 Timothy Lee tim...@rochester.rr.com
Thanks
It is something completely different. Most linux, netbsd and freebsd
packages rely on X11. MacOSX has support for x11 but the native windowing
system of MacOSX is aqua. Using the -x11 option means that you don't build
for X11. An increasing amount of binaries and libraries support native aqua
and
Hmm.. thats interesting.
So, does that imply that aqua provides a X11-like API (w/ libs) or
does that mean that the actual people writing packages (like
openoffice) need to support aqua calls conditionally compiled in on
detection of the aqua include/libs?
thanks
On Jan 24, 2009, at 1:25
It's definitely not the first. I assume they added code to support aqua and
it's API's.
I'm not a developer. just google for answers :)
Harry
2009/1/24 Timothy Lee tim...@rochester.rr.com
Hmm.. thats interesting.So, does that imply that aqua provides a X11-like
API (w/ libs) or does that mean
:
# Options for Universal Binaries (+universal variant)
# MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET
universal_target10.4
# the SDK sysroot to use
universal_sysroot /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk
# machine architectures
universal_archs ppc i386
and in variants.conf:
+universal
Harry
2009/1/23
On Jan 24, 2009, at 14:01, Timothy Lee wrote:
Exact same settings as below (except I'm only building i386), yet
I'm still seeing DEBUG: Environment:
MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET='10.5'.
Any Ideas?
Only building i386 -- does that mean you are not using the +universal
variant? If so, the
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 22, 2009, at 21:59, Timothy Lee wrote:
I just compile 1.7.0 from source and my macports.conf universal_target
has a 10.4 next to it. However, when I compile on my Leopard machine,
I see DEBUG: Environment: MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET='10.5'.
I thought
Timothy Lee wrote:
Hey Joshua-
Thanks for the reply.
Do you know if its possible for me (on leopard) to build x86 code (all
my macports ports) that will also run on Tiger?
Short of physical access to an intel 10.4 install, is there anything I
can do?
Don't forget to use Reply All so the
Hi,
I've setup my MacPorts 1.7 to always build universal (does not always work
and sometimes needs a manual change of the Portfile).
To do this I configured in the macports.conf the following:
# Options for Universal Binaries (+universal variant)
# MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET
universal_target
Thanks for the tip!
Has anyone tried this? Success/failure stories?
Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
Timothy Lee wrote:
Hey Joshua-
Thanks for the reply.
Do you know if its possible for me (on leopard) to build x86 code (all
my macports ports) that will also run on Tiger?
On Jan 21, 2009, at 19:22, Timothy Lee wrote:
Hi Macports people!
Two questions:
1. What is the current state of the +universal variant? Do most
ports work?
Not all ports do, but many do. gimp and inkscape do, for instance...
If something doesn't work for you, file a bug. I think it's
On Jan 21, 2009, at 21:22, Timothy Lee wrote:
1. What is the current state of the +universal variant? Do most
ports work?
It's unknown if most ports work. If it doesn't work for ports you
want, file tickets. Note that 64-bit universal support is likely more
broken than plain 32-bit
I just compile 1.7.0 from source and my macports.conf universal_target
has a 10.4 next to it. However, when I compile on my Leopard machine,
I see DEBUG: Environment: MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET='10.5'.
I thought universal_targe would set the MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET.
Am I wrong?
On Jan 22,
On Jan 22, 2009, at 21:59, Timothy Lee wrote:
I just compile 1.7.0 from source and my macports.conf
universal_target has a 10.4 next to it. However, when I compile on
my Leopard machine, I see DEBUG: Environment:
MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET='10.5'.
I thought universal_targe would set the
Hi Macports people!
Two questions:
1. What is the current state of the +universal variant? Do most ports
work?
2. How is dependencies and the +universal variants used? Meaning if I
type sudo port install pan2 +universal will that pass the variant to
all dependencies that get built
Creating portfiles/Makefiles for universal binary builds seems not so
easy.
Example:
port install zlib -universal
produces a fat ppc/i386 library on a ppc machine, while it produces
non-fat i386 library on an intel platform.
port install freetype -universal
produces non-fat i386 libraries
On Aug 9, 2007, at 07:35, Bengt Nilsson wrote:
Creating portfiles/Makefiles for universal binary builds seems not
so easy.
The problem is you are using a minus sign when you need to use a plus
sign. The minus sign *deselects* a variant, while the plus sign
selects it. You want sudo port
I think you're starting with a fundamental premise that Universal
binaries are something of an optional frill (and that they somehow
use more memory than non-universal ones) - neither statement is,
unfortunately, true.
First, you have to remember that even people who build all their own
On Feb 23, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Now, what we could think about doing is providing some kind of
default, where +universal would use the standard CFLAGS, LDFLAGS
and --disable-dependency-tracking, unless the port itself defines a
+universal variant. This would allow many
editing. Other
than that, I would love for universal to be default. But since that
isn't my situation, I want the option to choose.
- -Altoine
Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
I think you're starting with a fundamental premise that Universal
binaries are something of an optional frill
of products for both architectures. Maybe
the /opt/local/universal is a stretch [ ]
Well, the beauty(?) of Universal binaries is that there doesn't need
to be any special place for them to go - you just install them where
you always installed them and everything Just Works™. If it's
On Feb 22, 2007, at 02:35, Nathan Brazil wrote:
Hi. Is it possible to produce universal binaries from MacPorts?
For example, are the GTK+ binaries produced from MacPorts specific
to the architecture of the machine it is produced on (PPC vs
Intel), or is there a way to produce binaries
61 matches
Mail list logo
