Just say no to +universal

[Elias Pipping]

On Mar 5, 2007, at 5:32 AM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:

>
> 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.

Well, how would I know? Anyway - sorry, I must've misunderstood you.