On Dec 3, 2010, at 06:34, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Dec 2, 2010, at 23:01, Jeremy Lavergne wrote: > >> I have a package that is on the path of being noarch, but `file` claims that >> the produced .mo files are a specific endian. Are .mo files >> architecture-specific? > > .mo files are machine-specific (that's what the "m" in ".mo" stands for). So > I don't know what that means for MacPorts arch indication. If we're keeping > an eye toward eventual binary distribution, I guess this means we would need > separate .mo files for big- and little-endian machines. But that doesn't fit > neatly into MacPorts supported_arch setting.
I would really hate it if a port had to be considered architecture-specific, for the sole reason that it uses a gettext message catalog. Perhaps it's like TIFF files: there are big- and little-endian TIFF formats, but libtiff can read either format regardless what endianness it's running on. Can someone please test whether a message catalog compiled on a Mac of one endianness works on a Mac of the other endianness? _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
