On Aug 17, 2012, at 12:37, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > On Aug 15, 2012, at 18:05, Ludwig wrote: > >> But seeing as how +x11 and +quartz are incompatible at such a low >> level, shouldn't >> they be mutually exclusive in all dependent ports? > > No. It would be better if those ports could be updated such that they > weren't conflicting. IIRC, the dylibs (and pkg-config files) are actually > named differently. They can theoretically co-exist.
I was under the impression that for some if not most ports, it's the same libs and programs, and they just build differently depending on whether quartz or x11 are enabled. For this reason I had supported the idea of having separate quartz and x11 subports of all affected ports. It's a major undertaking however. _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
