On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 17:21, Mike Alexander <[email protected]> wrote: > --On September 15, 2009 5:18:32 PM -0700 Toby Peterson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 17:05, Mike Alexander <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> --On September 15, 2009 4:01:43 PM -0700 Toby Peterson >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> For the few ports that actually care, only --build makes any sense. >>>> We don't support cross-compiling, and very few configure scripts >>>> get it right anyway. >>> >>> I think Jack's point is that in 10.6 on a 32 bit kernel you >>> effectively are cross-compiling whether you want to or not. You're >>> building 64 bit binaries on a system that claims to be a 32 bit >>> system. That seems like cross-compiling to me. Am I >>> misunderstanding something? >> >> As I've noted numerous times now, config.guess still reports i386 on >> K64, so this perceived problem exists regardless of the kernel >> architecture. > > Ok, that just seems to make the problem worse. Even after switching to the > 64 bit kernel you're still cross-compiling, right?
No. From configure's perspective, cross-compiling means building for an architecture that your build system can't run. A 64-bit Snow Leopard machine can run x86_64, i386, and ppc (with Rosetta). Of course, if you actually are cross-compiling then the vast majority of configure scripts don't work, so you'll need to hack things anyway. This is why I'm saying that "fixing" the output of config.guess doesn't really have any practical benefit (for most ports). - Toby _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
