Bryan Blackburn wrote: > 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?
Hang on, can configure.m64 be set in macports.conf? Overridden on the command line? I thought it could be, and if not, then it should be. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
