[65087] trunk/base/src/macports1.0/macports.tcl

[Jeremy Huddleston]

the proto packages have no arch, so they're marked:

universal_variant no

xorg-server depends on these protos.  I want to install it +universal, and base aborts because it can't satisfy the proto dependencies as +universal.

Do noarch ports need to be updated again in a way other than 'universal_variant no'?  If so, how should we do that?  I searched macports-dev and came up empty.  grepping dports for "noarch" showed nothing useful either.  Looking at your 
patch, it looks like we have to force the build arch to "noarch" in these packages.  Is that right?  Are we going to have to revbump all these packages (X11 protos, data files, perl and python scripts, etc) for this?


On Apr 2, 2010, at 15:43, Joshua Root wrote:

> On 2010-4-3 09:33 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> 
>> On Apr 2, 2010, at 16:43, Joshua Root wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2010-4-3 07:39 , Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
>>>> This patch assumes that ports are binary.  Non-binary ports do not have the universal variant and are set 'universal_variant no'.  This makes it impossible to install anything using X11 with recent base.
>>> 
>>> We will need to start marking such ports as noarch. There's probably a
>>> need for a way to mark some dependencies as not needing to have matching
>>> archs as well, for the case where it just supplies a tool like gzip or
>>> something. File a ticket so we don't forget before the next release.
>> 
>> Are we checking archs of all dependencies? I would assume we just need to check library and runtime dependencies, not fetch, extract or build dependencies.
> 
> All of them. While I can't think of a situation where the arch of a
> fetch or extract dep would matter, a build dep could generate code or
> supply a static library.
> 
> Remember this is only an issue for ports that are not noarch _and_ can't
> build universal or have a restricted set of supported archs.
> 
> - Josh