On 2010-5-30 09:37 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On May 29, 2010, at 18:25, Joshua Root wrote: > >> On 2010-5-30 09:18 , Joshua Root wrote: >>> On 2010-5-30 09:15 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>>> On May 29, 2010, at 18:10, Joshua Root wrote: >>>>> and code generators, to name two. >>>> >>>> Do you mean like swig, or what would be a code generator? >>> >>> GCC is the obvious example. > > Oh that. :) > >> I'm not opposed to adding a flag that indicates "none of this port's >> dependents will ever care about its arch" BTW. > > Yeah... that would seem to put the setting closer to where it belongs, and > reduce port maintainers' workloads. Do you think this would be hard to add?
It's a bit trickier than the other way, since we avoid even looking up dependencies in the index unless they're missing or lack the required archs. The flag probably needs to be stored in the registry. Too late to add a new feature at this stage anyway. Maybe for 1.9.1. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
