On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 06:10:48AM +1100, Joshua Root said: > Toby Peterson wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Bryan Blackburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Currently there are only a few ports with 64bit variants: > >> > >> nbench-byte +use_64_bit > >> ubench +use_64_bit > >> judy +bit64 > >> john-devel +use_64_bit > >> > >> (john-devel was updated with 64bit support by me, picking the more common > >> name). > >> > >> Before there are many more ports with such variants, we need to decide on a > >> standard name; I found that +64bit isn't liked by port as it thinks that is > >> the name of a port, not a variant so I guess it doesn't like a variant name > >> to start with a number. > >> > >> The only issue I have with +use_64_bit is it's long and a pain to type... > > > > Seems like a rather inappropriate use of variants in the first place. > > 64bit-related build foo should simply be applied if the port is being > > built 64bit (via universal_archs or other method). > > Right, the reason I added those variants to nbench-byte and ubench was > simply so they could be built 64-bit with MP 1.6. With 1.7, it seems > like universal_archs and configure.m64 should take care of the issue > between them.
So if someone wants to have 64bit support from a port, they'll need to build it +universal? This would have to require people adding the requisite setting to universal_archs in macports.conf as well right, since trunk still specifies only 'ppc i386'? Also, what about ports where building 64bit is easier than universal, if there are such ports? Bryan > > - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
