port should not complain about +universal, CFLAGS/LDFLAGS,
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