On Aug 1, 2013, at 21:24, Blair Zajac <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/1/13 9:15 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: >> Please don't just drop +universal support from a port which provides >> libraries. > > This wasn't intentional, I didn't know I was breaking it. Looking through my > commit again, there's nothing in there that indicated to me that it had > universal support or it was going to break. > >> Please be *EXTRA* careful not to break subversion, a dependent of serf which >> is now broken if +universal after this update. >> >> It's a PITA when subversion breaks because many of us use subversion to >> update dports, so if you break subversion, it becomes non-trivial to update >> dports to get the fix. > > Don't you get your primary architecture in any case?
serf renamed the dylib. subversion was left in a broken state because of the rename and failed to build +universal. Luckily in this case, the workaround was simple (just build it -universal temporarilary, svn update dports, rebuild serf1 +universal, then rebuild subversion), but we should be extra careful about this in the future. That left me with only the host subversion which is older and unable to deal with the svn metadata for the dports checkout. Yes, luckily the workaround was just to rebuild it -universal, then update dports, then updated serf1 for the new +universal fix, then rebuild subversion universal. > What happens if libserf-1.dylib has one of its architectures removed, does > svn break? Yes. revupgrade will remove it due to the broken linkage and then try to rebuild, so it's important to make sure it does rebuild since the previous version won't be installed any more at that point. > I'm ignoring the fact in my question that libserf-1.0.dylib was renamed to > libserf-1.dylib which required a rebuild. Yeah, the revbump took care of that, but the rebuild failed. What was the reason for renaming the dylib? > Out of curiosity, why do people care about universal builds? So they can > rsync a build to another platform? Just trying to understand the > ramifications of this change. Some ports only support one architecture or the other, so some ports need to be universal. Some people build +universal just to make sure the build doesn't break in other archs. --Jeremy
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
