On Mar 5, 2007, at 5:32 AM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
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.
Well, how would I know? Anyway - sorry, I must've misunderstood you.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
