64bit variant naming scheme

[Joshua Root]

Bryan Blackburn wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 06:10:48AM +1100, Joshua Root said:
>> Toby Peterson wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Bryan Blackburn <blb at macports.org> wrote:
>>>> Currently there are only a few ports with 64bit variants:
>>>>
>>>>  nbench-byte +use_64_bit
>>>>  ubench +use_64_bit
>>>>  judy +bit64
>>>>  john-devel +use_64_bit
>>>>
>>>> (john-devel was updated with 64bit support by me, picking the more common
>>>> name).
>>>>
>>>> Before there are many more ports with such variants, we need to decide on a
>>>> standard name; I found that +64bit isn't liked by port as it thinks that is
>>>> the name of a port, not a variant so I guess it doesn't like a variant name
>>>> to start with a number.
>>>>
>>>> The only issue I have with +use_64_bit is it's long and a pain to type...
>>> Seems like a rather inappropriate use of variants in the first place.
>>> 64bit-related build foo should simply be applied if the port is being
>>> built 64bit (via universal_archs or other method).
>> Right, the reason I added those variants to nbench-byte and ubench was
>> simply so they could be built 64-bit with MP 1.6. With 1.7, it seems
>> like universal_archs and configure.m64 should take care of the issue
>> between them.
> 
> So if someone wants to have 64bit support from a port, they'll need to build
> it +universal?  This would have to require people adding the requisite
> setting to universal_archs in macports.conf as well right, since trunk still
> specifies only 'ppc i386'?
> 
> Also, what about ports where building 64bit is easier than universal, if
> there are such ports?

Hang on, can configure.m64 be set in macports.conf? Overridden on the
command line? I thought it could be, and if not, then it should be.

- Josh