x86_64 10.5/i386 fink 10.6 and the options for MacPorts

[Anders F Björklund]

Jack Howarth wrote:

>> You probably want to fix the "${os.arch}" as well,
>> since that will affect e.g. how packages are named:
>>
>> set archive.file "${name}-${version}_${revision}${portvariants}. 
>> [option
>> os.arch].${archive.type}"
>> set unarchive.file "${name}-${version}_${revision}${portvariants}.
>> [option os.arch].${unarchive.type}"
>> 				
> Anders,
>    I am unclear what you mean here. Are you suggesting that I add...
>
> set archive.file "${name}-${version}_${revision}${portvariants}. 
> [option os.arch].${archive.type}"
> set unarchive.file "${name}-${version}_${revision}${portvariants}. 
> [option os.arch].${unarchive.type}"
>
> to the Portfile, because that doesn't build...
>
> Error: Unable to open port: can't read "portvariants": no such  
> variable
>
> Or are you speaking about additional changes to portmain.tcl itself?

Those would be changes to "base". But not really in portmain.tcl
but instead portarchive.tcl and portunarchive.tcl and friends...


Just saying that they will still identify as "i386", even if you
change the default configuration to build for x86_64 on Snowy.
(but the same mislabeling happened if you used -m64 on ppc64,
or when building +universal for e.g. both ppc/i386 at once...)

Example: RPM macros have five build archs: i386 or ppc (using -m32),
x86_64 or ppc64 (using -m64), and "fat" (using -arch i386 -arch ppc)
And a sixth arch too, "noarch", which is used for scripts/data/etc.
But the MacPorts archives/packages only have two: i386 or powerpc

--anders