On Feb 4, 2011, at 7:43 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> 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".
I'm well aware. Just an example.
- Toby
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
