Default +universal variant for configure-based ports

[Kevin Ballard]

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 majority of ports. Thus, it should be an opt-in  
rather than an opt-out.

On Feb 27, 2007, at 11:40 PM, 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 to work with it. Any proposed solutions?
>
> I don't think anything needs to be done. I don't have any problem  
> with the +universal variant being listed even if it doesn't work.  
> If someone tries it and it does not work, then they should submit a  
> bug report to the maintainer, just as they would for any other  
> problem with the port. Then the maintainer will either fix it or  
> add a universal variant which just outputs a us_msg explaining that  
> a universal build is not available at this time. Problem solved.

-- 
Kevin Ballard
http://kevin.sb.org
eridius at macports.org
http://www.tildesoft.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20070227/9b64b96a/attachment.html