On Oct 21, 2010, at 05:40, Dan Ports wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 01:21:42AM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> What we should change is the supported_archs, though; if it in fact only >> supports 32-bit architectures the port should so indicate. > > It isn't that simple -- the kernel module doesn't build 64-bit, but all > the userspace components (the library and framework) do.
I was afraid it was going to be something like that. In that case, the port is as correct as it can be, given the verbs MacPorts makes available. _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
