MySQL port name confusion

[Scott Haneda]

Question of curiosity.  Why does MacPorts needs to be able to build a  
UB? MacPorts builds on the machine it is intended to use.  I am not  
aware of many desiring to copy a binary from one machine to the other,  
and that would be a lot of work with all the man pages and other parts  
that may come along with the binary.

If the arch specific base will build, while probably not ideal with  
regard to a UB, is that not more or less the most desirable case?  The  
UB would be bloated, and many may run lipo on it to get rid of the  
parts they can not, or do not want to have.

Other than MacPorts ability to make a dmg or installer, what is the  
reason behind the UB builds, aside from being really cool to be able  
to do, and certainly a target moving forward, but in this case, would  
the MySql port not suffice to be able to stand as is?

I have never added +universal to a port, and in all the port files I  
have looked at, a very small percentage even have that variant.
-- 
Scott * If you contact me off list replace talklists@ with scott@ *

On Sep 26, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> I was just about to finally get around to doing that a few days ago,  
> but it seems mysql 5.1.x cannot be installed as a universal binary  
> whereas this was no problem for 5.0.x so I filed a but with the  
> mysql developers. Unfortunately I have not received a response on it  
> yet.
>
> http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=47360