On Aug 17, 2012, at 14:31, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 2012, at 12:37, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > >> On Aug 15, 2012, at 18:05, Ludwig wrote: >> >>> But seeing as how +x11 and +quartz are incompatible at such a low >>> level, shouldn't >>> they be mutually exclusive in all dependent ports? >> >> No. It would be better if those ports could be updated such that they >> weren't conflicting. IIRC, the dylibs (and pkg-config files) are actually >> named differently. They can theoretically co-exist. > > I was under the impression that for some if not most ports, it's the same > libs and programs, and they just build differently depending on whether > quartz or x11 are enabled. For this reason I had supported the idea of having > separate quartz and x11 subports of all affected ports. It's a major > undertaking however. That is true for some ports (especially applications), but the base libraries (like gtk2) can coexist just fine. _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
