On Jan 24, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
>
> Updated the ld64 port with this behavior.
Thanks! I think this will help.
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/m
Updated the ld64 port with this behavior.
I'm holding off on doing cctools like that since I'm hoping we can just make it
the latest version everywhere.
> On Jan 23, 2015, at 11:10, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2015, at 2:16 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
> wrote:
>
>> No, that's
On Jan 23, 2015, at 2:16 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
wrote:
> No, that's expected. If ppc is desirer, we should have 127.2.
Right. I meant "worse" in the sense of "more confusing", as far as the port
itself goes.
> I think the best solution would probably be similar to the perl port. We
On Jan 23, 2015, at 2:12 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
wrote:
> ld64 and cctools have been that way for years without issue. Only recently
> did I remove that in an effort to make the versioning of those ports less
> complicated. See:
>
> https://trac.macports.org/changeset/131487
Huh, int
> On Jan 22, 2015, at 22:35, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2015, at 1:33 AM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>
>> My last change dropped ld64 +universal to v127.2
>
> Rather, it changed the version if a PowerPC build were requested in any way.
> So that's probably even worse.
No, that'
> On Jan 22, 2015, at 22:33, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:45 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> I don't think we ever intended the version to be changed inside a variant. I
>> would consider it a maintainer error to do so. I don't think the portindex
>> accommodates more th
On Jan 23, 2015, at 1:33 AM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> My last change dropped ld64 +universal to v127.2
Rather, it changed the version if a PowerPC build were requested in any way. So
that's probably even worse.
vq
___
macports-dev mailing list
mac
On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:45 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> I don't think we ever intended the version to be changed inside a variant. I
> would consider it a maintainer error to do so. I don't think the portindex
> accommodates more than one version per port, and the portindex is used to
> determine
