On Jul 7, 2011, at 6:29 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> 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.
I think the earlier the better, post-patch 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...
$ find /opt/macports-clean/var/macports/sources/svn.macports.org/trunk/dports
-name Portfile | xargs grep -l -E "PortGroup.*muniversal" | xargs grep -l -E --
"(post-patch)" | wc -l
26
$ find /opt/macports-clean/var/macports/sources/svn.macports.org/trunk/dports
-name Portfile | xargs grep -l -E "PortGroup.*muniversal" | xargs grep -l -E --
"(pre-configure)" | wc -l
23
Regards,
Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla)
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
