variant or platform

[Yves de Champlain]

Le 07-07-11 à 00:25, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :

>
> On Jul 10, 2007, at 18:45, Yves de Champlain wrote:
>
>> I'm in a normalizing mood.
>>
>> I found out that
>>
>> 87 ports use variant darwin
>> 10 ports use variant puredarwin
>> 10 ports use variant freebsd
>>  3 ports use variant powerpc
>>  3 ports use variant x86
>
> Don't forget 2 ports that use "variant macosx". Oops, one of those  
> is mine...
>
>
>> Now, that should be "platform", shouldn't it ?
>>
>> Should I go on and change everything ?
>
> All except "variant x86", probably yes...
>
> As for "variant x86", the correct syntax would be "platform i386",  
> wouldn't it? I don't see any ports with "platform x86", and nobody  
> with an Intel Mac is currently automatically getting a variant  
> called "x86", as far as I know. And since those users are not  
> complaining, I must conclude that whatever is in the x86 variant is  
> not in fact necessary for Intel Macs, and may in fact be harmful.  
> So each of the x86 variants should be specifically examined and  
> only retained if found to still be necessary. I mean, up until not  
> too long ago, the only way to use MacPorts on an x86 processor was  
> to use an OS other than Mac OS X, right?

Mmm i386 is for intel, sure.  But x86 targets a wider set of  
platforms (intel and AMD).  So I always saw i386 as a subset of x86.

Am I far off ?

yves