Is there any value to packages? [was Re: Why no binaries?]

James Sumners james.sumners at gmail.com
Fri Oct 26 14:40:03 PDT 2007


Well, how do you propose building things for different architectures
on a build machine without a cross compiler? Unless you have a build
machine for each architecture type, PPC (G4 and G5) and Intel, then
you would have to use one.

I don't much see the point in universal binaries in regard to
MacPorts. If you have to build every package yourself, why bother? I
certainly don't. It seems to me like a better effort would be to
provide pre-built packages ala Debian, et al.

On 10/26/07, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
> > Although, someone would need to step up and maintain a cross compiler
> > port for the maintainers. That would make it easier for the port
> > maintainers to build the packages. If they could do something like
> > `port package +g4 +g5 +intel`, I'm sure the idea would go over a lot
> > better.
>
> Surely we don't need anything like that. Anyway, it wouldn't be a
> cross compiler port that we would need. Rather, each port would need
> to have this capability retrofitted. It would be very similar to the
> +universal variant we're already trying to retrofit into ports. I
> would much rather we continue working on perfecting that, rather than
> introducing ways to cross-compile things, a capability which would
> probably not be very well tested and therefore buggy.


-- 
James Sumners
http://james.roomfullofmirrors.com/

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts
pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it
is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become
drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted."

Missionaria Protectiva, Text QIV (decto)
CH:D 59


More information about the macports-users mailing list