On Jan 23, 2010, at 15:46, Jim Busser wrote: > On 2010-01-23, at 1:43 AM, Scott Haneda wrote: > >> At the same time, users are not concerned much with this > > What you say would be true anytime a simple "port install x" worked. When > however "port install x" did not work, it is exceedingly difficult for any > user (who only wants to enjoy some free software) to succeed. > > The free help given on list is appreciated but obviously limited, leaving the > user with little choice but to find their own way. Anything MacPorts can help > will be appreciated. Can MacPorts instead ship with +universal in > variants.conf? I fully recognize the experts will view it as unnecessary or > wasteful but it is deactivated in an instant by the savvy at the same time as > the existence and need are opaque to anyone who just wants to enjoy some free > software.
I advocated putting +universal in variants.conf on Snow Leopard and up. But then I tried it out myself and found too many ports that fail when built universal for x86_64/i386. Therefore I cannot advocate this change at this time. It would cause too much confusion for users. > Port clean seems to fail (without being clear it has failed) when one would > forget sudo (which I often do) making this a problem. This tempts to work as > root if it would be ok to add to the end of one's path /opt/local/bin/ The GSoC '08 privileges branch that was merged into MacPorts as of 1.8.0 has caused some of this. I personally do not like it but don't know what to do about it right now. > The *hardest* thing from my perspective is my inability to know whether it is > my lack of adeptness that prevents an easy solution -- one that a consultant > could identify (no consultants being listed at MacPorts.org though) -- or > whether bug fixes or significant new code is needed. I suppose in a way we on this mailing list are all consultants. Ask us what you will. > For example, there is free medical software that I am trying to get to work > on Macs. I do already run Ubuntu and Debian (in Fusion) so I do not > absolutely *have* to get it working. But if I would very much like to get > the software more widely-adopted (because I think it will be better for > patients) then it is worth somewhat of an uphill battle to get it working. > > I got it working once, under Leopard. But now, under Snow Leopard, I am close > to giving up, despite not wanting to give up. > > Even setting my universal_archs in macports.conf and adding +universal in > variants.conf and doing > > sudo port selfupdate > sudo port sync > sudo port upgrade --enforce-variants installed > > (I had actually added +universal though it wouldn't have been needed given > the .conf changes) > > I am stuck on postgresql84 at the first package I need: > > sudo port install py26-psycopg2 +postgresql84 > sudo port install py26-wxpython > sudo port install py26-mx-base > sudo port install texlive +doc +letter > sudo port install python_select postgresql84 does not currently build correctly universal for x86_64/i386: http://trac.macports.org/ticket/21358 If you can help us solve this, please add notes to the ticket. If you discover other software with the same problem, please file more tickets. > Users may aspire to limit their imposition on others so I tried applying a > patch to postgresql84. It is a patch that seems to have been available, > uncommitted, for some months. I had never before run the patch command, so > did not know what I was doing (it was my first patch application attempt, and > I maybe struggled through it). > > But maybe that patch is not an adequate solution, as building postgresql84 > still failed. That is where I am stuck. Thanks for reading. _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
