confusion in base regarding [option os.arch] and ${os.arch}

[Joshua Root]

On 2009-10-8 19:34, Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Joshua Root wrote:
> 
>>> While you are changing things, you might want to replace
>>> [option os.platform] with something that includes version,
>>> so that it'd look in e.g. "darwin/10" instead of in "darwin" ?
> 
>> These are definitely changes that need to be made, but be aware that
>> they need to fit in with the switch to registry2.0 (and subsequently
>> actually recording all the relevant info in the registry) as well as the
>> images-and-archives branch stuff (which I believe just needs code to
>> migrate existing installations before it's ready to merge back to trunk).
> 
> Just thought you might want to keep it in mind, for the change...
> (i.e. so that whoever is doing the switch and the merging is aware)
> Using ${os.platform} and ${os.arch} used to be enough information,
> but it probably needs more. Like the os release or the build arch.

Indeed.

> It needs to be fixed in the RPM packages as well, currently those
> are using "Requires: org.macports.darwin8" and no extra --target.
> It should probably set --target=x86_64 when doing the rpmbuild ?
> Otherwise it'll use %_build_platform, which is i386 (from uname).

Right, probably --target=$build_arch.

> Still seems like a design flaw to have build_arch in the "configure"
> namespace, but that's another story. At least it's not "universal".

That's another point; when a port is built universal, the archive needs
to be tagged with the list of universal_archs instead of the build_arch.

- Josh