Universal and binary builds

[Toby Peterson]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 21:45, Marcus Calhoun-Lopez
<mcalhoun at macports.org> wrote:
> Granted, but the extra functionality comes with a price, especially in
> Portfile creation and maintenance.
> It also adds the problem of dependencies.
> Now, if one port depends on another, then not only must they both be
> universal, they must be the same type of universal.
> Having universal just mean 32/64-bit would greatly simplify things.
> I would respectfully suggest that the extra functionality is not worth the price.

With a more powerful registry (*cough*), we could record the specific
architectures built (rather than "+universal"). This would make it
pretty easy to complain (and rebuild?) if someone tries to build a
port for architectures its dependencies are not built for.

- Toby