On Sep 28, 2009, at 15:00, Rainer Müller wrote:
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.
We have existing tickets (3 maybe) on this. I believe the plan was
that ports should indicate what architectures they can build for, that
MacPorts base should record in the registry what architectures each
installed port was actually built for, and that port install and
upgrade should verify that all library and runtime dependencies of the
port currently being installed were installed with at least as many
architectures as the port currently being installed.
A post-destroot thing to verify that a port's files were actually
built with the architectures the port claims it will build with would
be useful as well, but I don't think it would replace any of the above.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
