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

Paul Guyot pguyot at kallisys.net
Sat Mar 24 19:40:18 PDT 2007

On Mar 23, 2007, at 7:21 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> 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.

I concur. And I am very glad you guys are testing universal builds.
I still develop on a G4 machine, though...

> 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?

Elias just fixed that.

>> 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.

This was fixed by the recent upgrade of the +universal logic, which  
is based on the new configure environment support code.


More information about the macports-dev mailing list