Universal and binary builds

[Joshua Root]

Marcus Calhoun-Lopez wrote:
> I am all for binary builds, but I would suggest that work on
> universal variants continue (personally I find them very useful).

It is useful to be able to build universal, but universal *variants* are
the wrong way of going about it.

> Universal, however, should be limited to 32/64-bit universal as soon as possible.

I see no reason to limit the functionality. Changing the default archs,
sure.

> Having changes several ports over the muniversal PortGroup, the biggest
> obstacle is the cross-compiling (see
> http://trac.macports.org/attachment/ticket/17042/glib2-Portfile.diff)
> for the reasons noted above.

Speaking of muniversal, it would be nice if its functionality were
integrated into base sooner rather than later, along with a more sane
approach to universal building in general.

Also, just an observation, muniversal is not a solution that can be
applied upstream. When possible, it is preferable to fix things in ways
that upstream can adopt.

> I can not image that MacPorts ppc/i386 universal builds are in widespread use.

That was the *only* kind of MacPorts universal build prior to 1.7. I
suspect that ppc/i386 is the combination of choice for those building
binary packages. I would go so far as to say that most people who aren't
building ppc/i386 don't really want to build universal at all, but want
to change the target arch (or OS, though that's an orthogonal issue).

- Josh