On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Sep 25, 2012, at 13:38, Andrea D'Amore wrote: > >>> 2. Even for projects that support both 2.8 and 2.9, like, say wxMaxima, the >>> users >>> may want to compile it for 64 bits -- IMHO such support should be default. >>> It's >>> a bit irksome when simply installing wxMaxima pulls in a bazillion >>> universal ports. >> >> There are variants for that, you are not forced to build +universal, are you? > > Yes, you're forced to build universal, because wxWidgets 2.8 requires 32-bit, > so it requires its dependencies to be 32-bit; when build_arch is x86_64 that > means MacPorts will rebuild the dependencies universal. > > I said I would stay out of the naming debate, but: > > -devel ports are supposed to be for users who want to experience the leading > edge of development and try out new things before they're finalized. It > should not be necessary for users to install a -devel port in order to get > basic functionality, as is currently required in many cases for wxWidgets. > > [...] > > If cathedrals are going to continue to be the release strategy of the > wxWidgets developers, MacPorts might be wise to try to prepare for similar > situations in the future, by using numbered wxWidgets ports, and making them > simultaneously installable, so that each port can declare a dependency on > whichever version of wxWidgets it works with and it does not need to affect > other ports. > > Or, if there are no ports that require wxWidgets earlier than 2.9, or if they > can be easily patched to support 2.9, then we could update the main wxWidgets > port to the current 2.9 release and forget about 2.8 already. > > Let's just do something that results in users on current OS X being able to > install the ports they want without fuss.
I think we realistically need wxWidgets-devel to be installable in parallel with wxWidgets. If someone decides to rename them wxWidgets28 and wxWidgets29, like IMHO they should be named, then that's even better, but I don't care about that at the moment. For now I'll try and get all the ports that use wxWidgets and support 2.9 to: 1. Have an optional wxWidgets-devel variant. 2. Choose that variant by default if wxWidgets-devel is installed, as currently it implies that wxWidgets 2.8 is not installed. Once wxWidgets-devel can coexist with wxWidgets, we can get rid of #2 so that users have a full choice of what variant is used by any port that claims to support both. Cheers, Kuba _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
