[58392] trunk/dports/_resources/port1.0/group/archcheck-1.0.tcl

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Sep 28, 2009, at 15:00, Rainer Müller wrote:

> On 2009-09-28 20:55 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> I agree it's a peculiar thing to have in a portgroup, but so is the
>> xcodeversion portgroup, and they both fill a need. The alternative is
>> to duplicate a bunch of code in a bunch of ports, so I think this is
>> better. Better still would be support in MacPorts base, but I'm not
>> sure how to best accomplish that. If you have any ideas, please let  
>> me
>> know.
>
> I have a plan for adding a verify step after the destroot phase (or
> maybe in post-destroot). It would check produced binaries and  
> libraries
> for missing dependencies. That is, check the library paths the files  
> are
> linked to against the list of dependencies.
>
> I proposed this with more details as a Summer of Code task:
> <http://trac.macports.org/wiki/SummerOfCode#depcheck>
>
> Checking for the right architectures would fit in there as well.

We have existing tickets (3 maybe) on this. I believe the plan was  
that ports should indicate what architectures they can build for, that  
MacPorts base should record in the registry what architectures each  
installed port was actually built for, and that port install and  
upgrade should verify that all library and runtime dependencies of the  
port currently being installed were installed with at least as many  
architectures as the port currently being installed.

A post-destroot thing to verify that a port's files were actually  
built with the architectures the port claims it will build with would  
be useful as well, but I don't think it would replace any of the above.