On Jul 15, 2007, at 15:21, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
And you posited that "x86" worked on some platforms, while I know
that "i386" is correct for Intel Macs. In terms of what happens if
you write a platform selector in MacPorts, I don't think i386 is a
subset of x86 at all; if I were to draw a Venn diagram, I don't
think the two circles would intersect. uname either returns i386
(like on Intel Macs) or it returns x86 (on some other Intel
computers). I think my point was just that any occurrences of
"platform x86" or "variant x86" should *not* be changed to
"platform i386" because the x86 selectors seem to have been used
in the past to target non-Macs, which would make this software
start to fail on Intel Macs.
Seems like all the current ports with "x86" or "intel" as the arch are
either wrong or typos, though... "darwin x86" should be "darwin i386",
I still say that this needs to be examined and evaluated individually
for each port. If nobody's complaining about these ports, then maybe
whatever's being done in the darwin x86 platform selector isn't
necessary for Intel Macs at all, and might in fact be harmful.
For example, mpfr has a section "platform darwin x86", but it also
has an identical section "platform darwin i386", so the port
maintainer, Vincent, should be asked why this is duplicated. I'm
Cc'ing him on this email.
And xgalaga has a section "platform darwin x86" which should clearly
be "platform darwin i386", and I've changed that now, but the port
doesn't build on Intel Macs anyway because it uses (and seems maybe
to require) gcc 3.3.
and the one (1) port with "darwin intel" is just plain wrong IMHO.
Ah -- "darwin intel" -- that's why I didn't find it before. Got it
now: it's libdnsres. I'm Cc'ing the maintainer, Mark, since he should
have a say in this, but I agree, this should be "platform darwin
i386". I think he should also remove the unnecessary CFLAGS and
LDFLAGS definitions.
They should most likely be *standardized* to be "powerpc" or "i386",
even though the aliases "ppc" and "x86" are theoretically valid too
(for example Darwin 6-7 was i386, Darwin 8-9 are i686, both: "x86")
I don't know what you mean by all of this. I'm on darwin 8 now, and
uname returns i386, and "platform x86" sections definitely do not get
executed by MacPorts on an Intel Mac currently. If you're suggesting
that MacPorts base could be changed so that x86 would also work on
Intel Macs, then I again reiterate that I believe x86 is being used
in several ports right now in an attempt to target non-Macs. If such
a change were made to base, those ports would start failing on Intel
Macs.
It's easy to tweak port.tcl to return "i386" for any "x86" or "i686"
machines from tcl_platform, just as it is currently returns "powerpc"
for the hopelessly silly `uname -m` return value of "Power
Macintosh"...
It might have been clearer if we had tweaked "i386", "i686", and
"x86" to be just "intel", but I'm not sure if we want to go to all
the trouble to do that now.
The suggested "port platform" info command could help people determine
what values to put into their platform variants, but for the current
common target it's probably enough to make a list of available ones ?
I'm not sure what you mean here? What suggested "port platform" info
command?
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
