Let's keep the discussion on the mailing list. On Oct 20, 2010, at 18:42, Johannes Ruscheinski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> > >> "port -v installed" shows you what architecture(s) MacPorts intends to have >> built each port for (though that's no guarantee that's the architecture the >> port was actually built for) (and this information is only recorded if the >> port was built with MacPorts 1.9 or greater). >> >> To see what architecture(s) a file was actually built for, use "lipo -info" >> on it, for example: >> >> lipo -info >> /Library/Filesystems/fusefs.fs/Support/fusefs.kext/Contents/MacOS/fusefs > > port -v installed|grep macfuse > > yields: > > macfuse @2.0.3_3 (active) platform='darwin 10' archs='x86_64' > > In fact everything I have shows either "noarch" or "x86_64". Ok, and what did "lipo -info" show for what architectures the port's files actually got built for? Since the portfile doesn't have a configure phase, doesn't do anything with build_arch in the build phase, and the OS claims the kext is not of the right architecture when you try to load it into a 64-bit kernel, I'm going to assume it was actually built for i386. And since Dan said it doesn't actually work when compiled x86_64, that's not something we can change now. What we should change is the supported_archs, though; if it in fact only supports 32-bit architectures the port should so indicate. _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
