On Feb 3, 2011, at 20:50, Toby Peterson wrote:
> Using examples from the c-ares port, I'd envision something like this:
>
> platform x86_64 {
> config_define ${worksrcpath}/ares_build.h CARES_SIZEOF_LONG 8
> config_define ${worksrcpath}/ares_config.h SIZEOF_LONG 8
> config_define ${worksrcpath}/ares_config.h SIZEOF_SIZE_T 8
> config_define ${worksrcpath}/ares_config.h SIZEOF_TIME_T 8
> }
>
> platform i386 {
> config_define ${worksrcpath}/ares_build.h CARES_SIZEOF_LONG 4
> config_define ${worksrcpath}/ares_config.h SIZEOF_LONG 4
> config_define ${worksrcpath}/ares_config.h SIZEOF_SIZE_T 4
> config_define ${worksrcpath}/ares_config.h SIZEOF_TIME_T 4
> }
>
> platform armv6 {
> ...
> }
MacPorts does not currently have any such thing as "platform x86_64" or
"platform armv6". The only platforms are "i386" and "powerpc", and "darwin" and
"linux" and "freebsd" and so on. Unless your suggestion was that he implement
changes to MacPorts base that provide "platform" selectors for architectures.
Of course that becomes fuzzy when we talk about "platform i386" which, at
present, is defined to mean "any Intel processor" (just like "platform powerpc"
means "any PowerPC processor") whereas if you suggest that we implement
"platform x86_64" to mean "a 64-bit Intel processor" then that implies that you
want to redefine "platform i386" to mean "a 32-bit Intel processor".
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
