Just say no to +universal

Peter O'Gorman peter at pogma.com
Sun Mar 4 20:32:48 PST 2007

On Mar 4, 2007, at 11:10 PM, Elias Pipping wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> On 2007-03-03 19:44:32 -0800, Reid Nichol wrote:
>> [...]
>>>   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)?
>> Yes, and as this has been said somewhere, this should be done  
>> upstream
>> (perhaps at the autoconf level, with a new option --enable- 
>> universal).
>> Indeed, I don't see why only MacPorts users could be interested in
>> universal binaries.
> I guess nobody feels responsible for taking care of universal  
> binaries:
>   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2007-02/ 
> msg00320.html

What do you mean?

I spent dozens of hours getting GNU libtool to work with universal  
binaries. It could create and unpack fat static archives etc before  
Apple announced their switch to intel. Since the switch I have also  
added support for their odd -isysroot etc flags. My point about  
autoconf is vaild. The fix for AC_C_BIGENDIAN is incomplete, it does  
not work if the package does not use a config header, and the other  
issues with sizeof checks and offsetof etc still remain.


More information about the macports-dev mailing list