On Oct 14, 2008, at 09:55, Rainer Müller wrote: > Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >>> There would be multiple possible solutions: >>> >>> a) Add a "linux" platform to the default sections >>> Means selecting a specific gcc version (I wanted to add a >>> configuration value to macports.conf anyway, would allow to >>> overwrite it). Would only fix Linux and not other platforms >>> like *BSD. >>> >>> b) Fallback to gcc in /usr/bin/gcc >>> Just assume there is a working gcc in /usr/bin/gcc >>> (respectivley for >>> the other tools) if there is no default for the current platform >>> >>> c) Fallback to gcc in PATH >>> Don't use any hardcoded paths, assume gcc is available >>> somewhere on >>> this machine and accessible through PATH. >>> >>> d) Fallback to cc in PATH >>> Don't assume every machine provides gcc and use cc from PATH >>> (e.g. *BSD machines with pcc or Solaris with Sun CC). >>> I am not sure if this option will work well, ports may use gcc >>> specific options. >>> >>> I would prefer c), but I am asking to confirm that I will not be >>> breaking something again :-) >> >> The problem is only when configure.compiler is blank, right? That can >> only happen on non-Mac platforms, since on Mac OS X we set >> configure.compiler to something based on the Mac OS X version. I >> would add a case to the switch statement to allow configure.compiler >> to be blank, and in that case, I would say we should do what you >> propose in b) or c). > > Exactly, we have defaults for configure.compiler on Mac OS X but > not for > other platforms. And we also don't have a fallback if there is no > default defined for the current platform.
Ok, then let us make it so: Allow configure.compiler to be empty (on any platform), and if it is, set it to "gcc". >> Maybe "port lint" also needs to check for valid configure.compiler >> values. > > In my opinion, port lint should only check syntax and format of a > Portfile and not the values. If we add a check for specific > options, we > begin to double the places where the values are kept. I don't think > this > is feasible I think we already have port lint code that checks values (like complaining e.g. if you set a port's maintainer to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" instead of "nomaintainer" -- trying to reduce spam to that address). But in the case of configure.compiler, you're right, it's fine not to check for that in lint. _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
