Re: Difference between build_arch and configure.build_arch, universal_archs and configure.universal_archs (was: Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel)

On Jun 15, 2022, at 16:49, Joshua Root wrote: > $universal_archs contains exactly what is set in macports.conf (so does > $build_arch). ${configure.universal_archs} is the archs that will actually be > built with +universal, and may differ from the macports.conf value due to the >

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

On 2022-6-16 03:14 , René J.V. Bertin wrote: On Wednesday June 15 2022 17:10:01 Christopher Jones wrote: what about configure.universal_archs though, have you set that to have > 1 entry ? thats what base cares about, hence the "due to < 2 supported universal_archs A! That works, indeed.

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

On Wednesday June 15 2022 17:10:01 Christopher Jones wrote: >what about configure.universal_archs though, have you set that to have > 1 >entry ? thats what base cares about, hence the "due to < 2 supported >universal_archs A! That works, indeed. It seems that this variable is empty when

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

> On 15 Jun 2022, at 3:25 pm, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > >> Base is exactly smart enough. When supported_archs contains only 1 arch, it >> does make sense to offer a universal variant, therefore base prevents it. > > As I said before, supported_archs contains x86_64 and arm64. what about

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

>Base is exactly smart enough. When supported_archs contains only 1 arch, it >does make sense to offer a universal variant, therefore base prevents it. As I said before, supported_archs contains x86_64 and arm64. If ports should be able to create a universal variant in case that variant

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

On Jun 14, 2022, at 12:33, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > On Monday June 13 2022 04:34:46 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> The standard universal variant has no content. (Universal support is >> implemented by adding the return value of procedures like >> [get_canonical_archflags cc] to CFLAGS.) Many ports

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

On Monday June 13 2022 04:34:46 Ryan Schmidt wrote: >The standard universal variant has no content. (Universal support is >implemented by adding the return value of procedures like >[get_canonical_archflags cc] to CFLAGS.) Many ports implement their own >universal variant by manually creating

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

On Monday June 13 2022 17:54:06 Ryan Schmidt wrote: >There is no support in MacPorts base (or via a portgroup) yet for using such >an SDK; it would have to be programmed into the port manually. I had submitted >a PR to add such support to base, but it proved to be incomplete and I did not

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

On Jun 13, 2022, at 15:40, Chris Jones wrote: > On 13 Jun 2022, at 1:06 pm, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > >> Ryan Schmidt wrote on 20220613::04:34:46 re: "Re: +universal for x864+arm64 >> on Macintel" >> >>> As far as I know, the SDK would also n

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

On Monday June 13 2022 21:40:19 Chris Jones wrote: I did indeed misread; I should have realised that 10.11 predates ARM Macs by too much. >Macports only supports buidling against the sdk you would ‘naturally’ get >installing the Xcode/CLT version supported on a given OS. Whilst it might be

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

> On 13 Jun 2022, at 1:06 pm, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > Ryan Schmidt wrote on 20220613::04:34:46 re: "Re: +universal for x864+arm64 > on Macintel" > >> As far as I know, the SDK would also need to support arm64, which SDKs prior >> to macOS 11 don'

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

> On 13 Jun 2022, at 1:06 pm, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > Ryan Schmidt wrote on 20220613::04:34:46 re: "Re: +universal for x864+arm64 > on Macintel" > >> As far as I know, the SDK would also need to support arm64, which SDKs prior >> to macOS 11 don'

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

Ryan Schmidt wrote on 20220613::04:34:46 re: "Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel" >As far as I know, the SDK would also need to support arm64, which SDKs prior >to macOS 11 don't. Therefore MacPorts doesn't support compiling for macOS for >arm64 prior to macOS 1

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

On Jun 13, 2022, at 04:29, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > On Monday June 13 2022 02:48:06 Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> (and if MacPorts does not create a universal variant automatically in this >> case then the port should do so itself) > > Doh, I should have thought about that. Still, it would be more

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

On Monday June 13 2022 02:48:06 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > (and if MacPorts does not create a universal variant automatically in this > case then the port should do so itself) Doh, I should have thought about that. Still, it would be more elegant to handle that situation with something like

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

On Jun 13, 2022, at 02:58, Chris Jones wrote: > I assume you have tried removing these two line from your portfile ? > > You're pointing to the `universal_variant no` line and

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

I assume you have tried removing these two line from your portfile ? On 13/06/2022 8:48 am, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Jun 10, 2022, at 11:23, René J.V. Bertin wrote: When I

Re: +universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

On Jun 10, 2022, at 11:23, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > When I tried to test the new +universal variant of a x864_64 + arm64 port > (port:VLC) installing from official DMGs on my 10.9.5 Mac I discovered that > the variant wasn't added because the port only supported the current build >

+universal for x864+arm64 on Macintel

Hi, Just an observation: When I tried to test the new +universal variant of a x864_64 + arm64 port (port:VLC) installing from official DMGs on my 10.9.5 Mac I discovered that the variant wasn't added because the port only supported the current build architecture. Whaaat? It took me a while to