On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Kees Bakker wrote:
> PS and BTW. If the Fink packages were build as "fat binaries" for i386 and ppc
> I would never have tried to use my own framework.
Let me comment about why we don't do this. For a large percentage of open
source packages (the figure 80% is bandied about) one could simply run "make"
twice with appropriate options and then lipo all the libs and binaries
together. This could obviously be automated by Fink.
However, we would have to work hard for the additional 10% or 20% -- lots of
special cases there. And this is pretty much an all-or-nothing proposition:
either Fink is built with fat binaries and then every Fink compile can
correctly assume that all libs it accesses are fat, or not -- otherwise, we
would need a mechanism to specify which packages were fat and which weren't,
and the dependency checking on that would be horrendous.
Had Fink begun after OS X on i386 had been introduced, the story might be
different... Of course these days, one can argue in favor of including 4
architectures (i386/x86_64/ppc/ppc64) which might even grow in the future, if
open source compiling on Apple's chips for mobile devices ever gets going...
-- Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sell apps to millions through the Intel(R) Atom(Tm) Developer Program
Be part of this innovative community and reach millions of netbook users
worldwide. Take advantage of special opportunities to increase revenue and
speed time-to-market. Join now, and jumpstart your future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-atom-d2d
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
