On 2009-09-28 20:55 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > I agree it's a peculiar thing to have in a portgroup, but so is the > xcodeversion portgroup, and they both fill a need. The alternative is > to duplicate a bunch of code in a bunch of ports, so I think this is > better. Better still would be support in MacPorts base, but I'm not > sure how to best accomplish that. If you have any ideas, please let me > know.
I have a plan for adding a verify step after the destroot phase (or maybe in post-destroot). It would check produced binaries and libraries for missing dependencies. That is, check the library paths the files are linked to against the list of dependencies. I proposed this with more details as a Summer of Code task: <http://trac.macports.org/wiki/SummerOfCode#depcheck> Checking for the right architectures would fit in there as well. Rainer _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
