Ryan Schmidt wrote: > Rainer, would you prefer for us to distribute 5 different disk images of > MacPorts then -- Panther PowerPC, Tiger PowerPC, Tiger Intel, Leopard > PowerPC, Leopard Intel?
A disk image with four architectures will be around four times bigger than it needs to be... Why should anybody want to download a large file if 3/4 are useless data and just occupy disk space? > Apple wants developers to make universal binaries so that users don't > need to care what kind of processor they have. Other Mac developers are > making universal binaries. We should too. And we already do. We just > have separate images for Panther, Tiger and Leopard right now. And I'd > like to unify that as well so that we end up with a single downloadable > for our software, like most other Mac developers already have. So why does Apple not just provide a interface to strip uneeded architectures right on installing? Instead, they copy useless data. I don't understand this... At least one can do it himself and remove them with ditto. > We already had several cases where users downloaded the Leopard MacPorts > disk image, installed it on Tiger, and of course it didn't work. So > distributing a single disk image which works everywhere is simpler for > users. [Those stupid users should learn to read...] But if you download an universal disk image; after the first selfupdate, which you normally do after install to get a newer minor version, you will end up with a single architecture - the one of your system. Why should disk images distribute a different version than selfupdate? I don't want to debate over support universal building for ports, somebody might need it. And I don't want to say that universal in general is bad. Rainer _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev