On Mar 4, 2007, at 11:10 PM, Elias Pipping wrote:
On Mar 4, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2007-03-03 19:44:32 -0800, Reid Nichol wrote:
[...]
Now, as for the messing up the Portfile thing. Yes, everyone
agrees
that having the universal binary hack in every Portfile is messy and
undesirable. Please, stop bringing this up as it really is
beating a
dead horse at this point. Also, to assume that this is the only
option
for including this functionality is ridiculous.
So, instead of trashing one bad idea (over and over), how about
discussing ways that might get this wanted functionality in with
minimal pain. A couple ideas have already been thrown out
there. How
about sticking to discussing those (or other ones)?
Yes, and as this has been said somewhere, this should be done
upstream
(perhaps at the autoconf level, with a new option --enable-
universal).
Indeed, I don't see why only MacPorts users could be interested in
universal binaries.
I guess nobody feels responsible for taking care of universal
binaries:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2007-02/
msg00320.html
What do you mean?
I spent dozens of hours getting GNU libtool to work with universal
binaries. It could create and unpack fat static archives etc before
Apple announced their switch to intel. Since the switch I have also
added support for their odd -isysroot etc flags. My point about
autoconf is vaild. The fix for AC_C_BIGENDIAN is incomplete, it does
not work if the package does not use a config header, and the other
issues with sizeof checks and offsetof etc still remain.
Peter
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
