On Mar 23, 2007, at 7:21 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Mar 18, 2007, at 05:52, Elias Pipping wrote:
Let's wait for official support of +universal with that...
Well, how will we get official support of +universal unless we push
for it? Now that I have an Intel Mac, it no longer takes forever
for me to compile things, so I'm trying to build as many things
universal as I can. And I will continue to bring to the list's
attention all problems I encounter in this endeavor. And we should
all try our best to fix the problems.
I concur. And I am very glad you guys are testing universal builds.
I still develop on a G4 machine, though...
When will we get +universal anyway? Right now, I'm running MacPorts
compiled from trunk, a.k.a. 1.500, because the 1.4rc2 release
doesn't appear to contain the default +universal variant. The
messages that have been inserted into some portfiles suggest that
the default +universal variant should have been in MacPorts 1.400.
So what's up?
Elias just fixed that.
eventually the whole if clause will be gone anyway.
I understand that the if clause in the portfiles testing for the
universal functionality will go away, once that functionality is
generally available. That does not fix the problem that the port
system will still print a warning that the port might fail to build
universally, when in fact it will not. I stand by my original
statement that the port system should not print the warning about
the CFLAGS or LDFLAGS if the portfile uses the
configure.universal_cflags-append or configure.universal_ldflags-
append options.
This was fixed by the recent upgrade of the +universal logic, which
is based on the new configure environment support code.
Paul
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
