On 2007-02-27 22:42:42 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Well my disk is full, and I wouldn't have a clue how to use the
debugging info even if it were there, so I don't want it. So how do
we make the presence or absence of -g configurable globally per user?
Note that even if there isn't a global
We currently have 3787 ports. I expect a majority of these ports to
fail building +universal. Do you really want emails sent out about
2000+ ports, and 2000+ changes to add the exact same behaviour?
To put it simply, the universal variant paul added is not going to
work for, I expect, a
Currently, not even 1% of the available ports have a working
universal variant.
Regards,
Elias Pipping
On Feb 28, 2007, at 5:42 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Feb 27, 2007, at 13:49, Kevin Ballard wrote:
That said, I don't think it *should* list universal unless the
port is actually known
and committed a default +universal variant
for configure-based ports. There's been some heat about
+universal recently and I did not want every port to define the
same code over and over.
This variant is more or less equivalent to:
variant universal {
configure.args-append --disable-dependency
On Feb 26, 2007, at 18:58, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
You are right. This will not work on 10.3 simply because 10.3
installations are not capable of building universal binaries. I
have just added a warning (we could transform it into an error)
when the +universal variant is selected on machines
On Feb 26, 2007, at 19:00, Blair Zajac wrote:
Hello Paul,
Yes, I would love to have a single Universal MacPorts build, but
since I need to support 10.3, that won't be happening.
But shouldn't the code adding this feature check to see if it's on
10.3 before adding the -isysroot and other
,
I've just implemented and committed a default +universal variant
for configure-based ports. There's been some heat about +universal
recently and I did not want every port to define the same code over
and over.
This variant is more or less equivalent to:
variant universal
)?
Regards,
Elias Pipping
On Feb 26, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Paul Guyot wrote:
Dear all,
I've just implemented and committed a default +universal variant for
configure-based ports. There's been some heat about +universal
recently and I did not want every port to define the same code over
and over
implemented and committed a default +universal variant for
configure-based ports. There's been some heat about +universal
recently and I did not want every port to define the same code over
and over.
This variant is more or less equivalent to:
variant universal {
configure.args-append --disable
as multiple branches? like bash 3.1.17 and
3.2.9 as a 3.1 and a 3.2 branch (yes, i'm thinking of gentoo -
stable, testing, etc)?
Regards,
Elias Pipping
On Feb 26, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Paul Guyot wrote:
Dear all,
I've just implemented and committed a default +universal variant
for configure-based
? like bash 3.1.17 and 3.2.9 as a
3.1 and a 3.2 branch (yes, i'm thinking of gentoo - stable, testing,
etc)?
Regards,
Elias Pipping
On Feb 26, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Paul Guyot wrote:
Dear all,
I've just implemented and committed a default +universal variant
for configure-based ports. There's
Pipping
On Feb 26, 2007, at 5:45 AM, Paul Guyot wrote:
Dear all,
I've just implemented and committed a default +universal
variant for configure-based ports. There's been some heat
about +universal recently and I did not want every port to
define the same code over and over.
This variant
12 matches
Mail list logo
