variant or platform

[Yves de Champlain]

Le 07-07-15 à 00:04, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :

> On Jul 10, 2007, at 23:49, Yves de Champlain wrote:
>
>> Le 07-07-11 à 00:25, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :
>>
>>> 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 ?
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2007, at 00:26, Yves de Champlain wrote:
>
>> I just saw "platform intel"  Does that really work ?
>
>
> I really have no idea about "x86" or "platform intel". Where is the  
> code in base that autoselects platforms? We could look there to see  
> what it supports.

it fetches uname, so whatever comes out is good

yves