Just say no to +universal
rnichol_rrc at yahoo.com
Sat Mar 3 19:44:32 PST 2007
I've been lurking for the past little while and have been reading the
arguments for both sides. I think something has been missed though.
To have any meaningful discussion one must specify what is the target
audience. Now, if one only considers the typical user as the one that
will be using MacPorts, then having universal binaries is, of course,
optional. BUT, if one includes developers in the MacPorts user
audience, then this is a different story.
Now, as for the messing up the Portfile thing. Yes, everyone agrees
that having the universal binary hack in every Portfile is messy and
undesirable. Please, stop bringing this up as it really is beating a
dead horse at this point. Also, to assume that this is the only option
for including this functionality is ridiculous.
So, instead of trashing one bad idea (over and over), how about
discussing ways that might get this wanted functionality in with
minimal pain. A couple ideas have already been thrown out there. How
about sticking to discussing those (or other ones)?
It's just that I've seen so many discussions got south because of
some people's tendency to hyper-focus on one little thing. It'd be a
shame to see universal binaries not be implemented if only because of
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
More information about the macports-dev