On Mar 3, 2007, at 5:06 PM, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Rather than big hacks on individual ports, it would seem better to
have a couple of declarative statements for the universal strategy
of a port:
- port may be built universal: yes/no
- port builds universal out of box: yes/no
- port builds in single pass with flags: xxx
- port can be built in multiple passes by lipoing together the
following binaries... (all others are assumed the same builds)
I'm not sure what value is added by having so many states. I
think, as far as the builder is concerned, the only state that
counts for anything is the first one. Does it build universal?
Yes? OK, then the builder can choose to build it universal if
that's valuable to them. If not, then it's a moot point. As far
as an internal macports developer is concerned, there's also not a
lot of value in splitting hairs here. If it builds universal out
of the box vs tweaking it, that's great, but it's no different than
having a port which compiles on MacOSX with no patches and respects
$prefix properly in all ways vs one which has to be coerced into
doing those things. Whether to lipo or not depends as much on
what the macports developer wants to do (e.g. how much trouble to
go through in the "coercion process") as anything else, so I don't
see what value a declarative statement adds there either.
As always, my mind was racing ahead to implementation ;) What I was
thinking out, though I didn't clearly say so, was what syntax we
might need to add to portfiles to support building software
universally in a more general fashion than having a separate
implementation for each port. The user doesn't care about any of
that, surely, except for #1.
James
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
