port should not complain about +universal, CFLAGS/LDFLAGS, configure.universal_cflags-append/configure.universal_ldflags-append

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Mar 18, 2007, at 05:52, Elias Pipping wrote:

> Let's wait for official support of +universal with that...

Well, how will we get official support of +universal unless we push  
for it? Now that I have an Intel Mac, it no longer takes forever for  
me to compile things, so I'm trying to build as many things universal  
as I can. And I will continue to bring to the list's attention all  
problems I encounter in this endeavor. And we should all try our best  
to fix the problems.

When will we get +universal anyway? Right now, I'm running MacPorts  
compiled from trunk, a.k.a. 1.500, because the 1.4rc2 release doesn't  
appear to contain the default +universal variant. The messages that  
have been inserted into some portfiles suggest that the default  
+universal variant should have been in MacPorts 1.400. So what's up?


> eventually the whole if clause will be gone anyway.

I understand that the if clause in the portfiles testing for the  
universal functionality will go away, once that functionality is  
generally available. That does not fix the problem that the port  
system will still print a warning that the port might fail to build  
universally, when in fact it will not. I stand by my original  
statement that the port system should not print the warning about the  
CFLAGS or LDFLAGS if the portfile uses the configure.universal_cflags- 
append or configure.universal_ldflags-append options.


> I mean really, there's worse problems than obsolete warnings

I think inaccurate warnings are almost worse than no warnings. If I  
try to install something universal, and it says "warning! this may  
not work!" then I will stop the build and examine the portfile to see  
what I think. Then I find the configure.universal_cflags-append bit  
or whatever which means it most likely will work because someone has  
gone out of their way to add that specifically for universal support.  
So then I get annoyed that I was made to check the portfile source.

Maybe this is all a moot point if the "universal_ok" flag is  
implemented as I described in the other thread. Then portfiles known  
to build universally can include "universal_ok yes", and the port  
system can then check just for that variable and not bother checking  
for CFLAGS, LDFLAGS or anything else.


> especially with gettext. e.g. gettext +universal is somehow  
> incomplete: all the libasprintf-related files are missing  
> completely. diff the results of port contents with and without  
> +universal and see for yourself (ideas, patches appreciated)

Hmm. I wasn't aware of that. But I have no idea what libasprintf is  
or why I would want it, and I don't know what to do about its absence  
either.