On 12.12.2007, at 12:31, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Oberhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Dec 12, 2007 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: plans for 64bit support
To: Weissmann Markus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
we put some research into this during GSOC this year: It's quite hard
to come up with a magic lipo for everything as it is necessary to
combine not only binaries (thats the easy part) but also stuff like
header files (also easy), heap images of interpreters, scripting
language programs, etc. -- which can get practically impossible.
We could enable four-way builds for (probably) all ports that we can
build universal right now, but there is currently no way of saying
"no ppc64 please" (etc.) in a port (and no tests/experience on what
exactly will be necessary).
Hmm, but that would mean I always have to build 4 times and waste
lots of space and time I will never ever need (i.e. on my intel mac
I will never use ppc binaries). Are ppc+interl universals so
important? After all macports is more of a local compile and use
thing than about binary distribution, right?
Well, our ultimate goal here would be to have these 4-way universal
builds as packages... but don't hold your breath for this to happen:
There is a lot of work to be done for this.
Regarding the space and time issue: Yes, building universal will take
roughly 4 times as long, but not take 4 times the space: The most
space is normally consumed by data files like documentation,
pictures, icons, etc.
>> Alternatively maybe have two macports trees, one with 64bit, one
>> with 32bit. Kinda like those lib64 dirs on some linux flavours. Is
>> that possible right now?
>
> You're talking about two collections of port binaries, presumably?
> Since we don't have any binaries at this point, or any 64-bit
> builds, anything's possible, of course. Is it wise to have 64-bit-
> only binaries? I wouldn't have thought so but I really have no idea.
>
> If you mean, is it possible to have 64-bit builds go into lib64
> instead of lib, then I would say if that's not the default for the
> software already, it would be a rather large hassle to fix every
> portfile to do this, wouldn't you say? And why is this better than
> a single all-encompassing superuniversal library installed in the
> normal expected location?
>
you could always pass a "-arch x86_64" (or "-arch ppc64") to the
cflags/cxxflags/.. manually if you desperately need 64 bit support,
e.g.:
$> port -d install readline configure.cflags="-O2 -arch x86_64"
(no idea if that one compiles though)
If you want to make some tests with four-way universal builds,
replace each occurrence (there are 3) of "-arch i386 -arch ppc" in /
opt/local/share/macports/Tcl/port1.0/portconfigure.tcl with "-arch
i386 -arch x86_64 -arch ppc -arch ppc64".
We are of course interested in your results... ;)
Hmm, no, this went down the wrong path. Let me clarify: Someone
before said that on Leopard macports would automatically build 64
bit binaries. Now I was wondering if
a) I could prevent this (i.e. have it build 32bit as before)
b) If I could have two completely independent macports repos on my
disk, one built 32bit and one 64bit. This would be ideal since most
everyday stuff is 32bit, and only some libs and stuiff are needed
for 64. I would go as far as saying this latter option would be the
best solution (less hassle than doing universal builds and better
controllable),
for the 32/64 bit versions I would really like this supported in
macports properly, and not have to fiddle with build flags... I
would like a repo-constant switch for this. I.e. some repo (I refer
to repo as a local macports install tree, i.e. what is usually
under /opt/local) would be set up as 64bit and always be 64bit from
there on (i.e. update, install and all when on this repo do 64bit
builds). And another would be 32bit. One could do the same for ppc.
I think real universal binaries are only ever needed for
distribution, and then one can always go and lipo things by hand.
So is this kind of repo-based architecture selection possible. And
the installation of multiple macports repos? If not I would even
help make it possible if someone gets me started :).
By default the Apple compilers will produce 32 bit binaries, so if
you don't do anything, you'll end up with 32 bit ppc or i386
binaries. We currently don't have a switch to enable 64 bit binaries,
so no: "just" installing MacPorts a 2nd time isn't getting you
anywhere near there.
I'd recommend (for now) to hack the portconfigure.tcl [1] file and
replace "-arch i386 -arch ppc" with "-arch i386 -arch x86_64", then
build the stuff you need with "+universal".
For more awesomeness to happen sooner, I'd advice to start hacking
port(1) with us... ;)
Regards,
-Markus
---
Dipl. Inf. (FH) Markus W. Weissmann
http://www.mweissmann.de/
http://www.macports.org/
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
