On Jul 6, 2011, at 6:58 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > I had wanted to do this at one point too. It seems like muniversal should > maybe make its copies during an earlier phase, but that will probably break > existing ports using muniversal. For example if the copies were to be made in > post-extract, that will break the patch phase. If the copies were made in > post-patch, I'm not certain if that would break post-patch phases. (Would the > post-patch block from the portgroup or the post-patch block(s) from the > portfile go first?) Similar question about pre-configure.
post-patch or pre-configure sounds right to me. How many ports that use muniversal make use of post-patch or pre-configure? It might be reasonable to test/update any of them to make a change to muniversal... -- Daniel J. Luke +========================================================+ | *---------------- [email protected] ----------------* | | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | +========================================================+ | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | | reflect the opinions of my employer. | +========================================================+ _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
