Marcus Calhoun-Lopez wrote: > I am all for binary builds, but I would suggest that work on > universal variants continue (personally I find them very useful).
It is useful to be able to build universal, but universal *variants* are the wrong way of going about it. > Universal, however, should be limited to 32/64-bit universal as soon as > possible. I see no reason to limit the functionality. Changing the default archs, sure. > Having changes several ports over the muniversal PortGroup, the biggest > obstacle is the cross-compiling (see > http://trac.macports.org/attachment/ticket/17042/glib2-Portfile.diff) > for the reasons noted above. Speaking of muniversal, it would be nice if its functionality were integrated into base sooner rather than later, along with a more sane approach to universal building in general. Also, just an observation, muniversal is not a solution that can be applied upstream. When possible, it is preferable to fix things in ways that upstream can adopt. > I can not image that MacPorts ppc/i386 universal builds are in widespread use. That was the *only* kind of MacPorts universal build prior to 1.7. I suspect that ppc/i386 is the combination of choice for those building binary packages. I would go so far as to say that most people who aren't building ppc/i386 don't really want to build universal at all, but want to change the target arch (or OS, though that's an orthogonal issue). - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
