Bug with multiple port: dependencies in depends_lib ?

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jul 7, 2008, at 16:40, Rainer Müller wrote:

> Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>
>>>> Ideally, we should have 1 universal pkg that works on 10.4 and 10.5
>>>> intel and ppc.
>>>
>>> Yes but no work has been done on this thus far so it can happen
>>> after MacPorts 1.7.0 is released.
>
> What is the important difference between the two? I can only think of
> the autoconf paths (/usr/bin/svn and /usr/bin/xar are included in
> Leopard, but not in Tiger).

When built on Leopard, MacPorts sets the x11prefix to /usr/X11. When  
built on Tiger, it sets it to /usr/X11R6. /usr/X11R6 would still work  
on Leopard because Leopard has a symlink at /usr/X11R6 pointing to / 
usr/X11.

When built on Leopard, MacPorts uses the MacOSX10.5.sdk. When built  
on Tiger, it uses the MacOSX10.4u.sdk.

I assume installing the MacPorts port without the +universal variant  
is possible, and that this would give you a non-universal MacPorts.

I would want the MacPorts port to enforce always installing  
universal, and also to use the MacOSX10.3.9.sdk for PowerPC and  
MacOSX10.4u.sdk for Intel. configure, build, install four times (for  
ppc, i386, ppc64 and x86_64), lipo everything together. We can use  
the merge() function that has been committed to trunk to help with  
this. See also the universal variants in openssl and cairo for ideas.


>>> I see in the GSoC wiki page that there is a desire to replace the
>>> selfupdate mechanism with using the MacPorts port to update the
>>> MacPorts installation. This means we should concentrate our efforts
>>> on the MacPorts port for making sure a truly universal MacPorts is
>>> built.
>
> The target of the GSoC project idea was to remove 'port selfupdate'  
> and
> make updates to MacPorts base by 'port upgrade MacPorts'.

We keep "sudo port selfupdate" as a synonym for "sudo port upgrade  
MacPorts", I assume?

>> Right, it would be good to get to the point where 'port dmg MacPorts'
>> was sufficient to generate the dmg we put on the website.
>
> Eh, I thought this is exactly the way the dmgs for the website are
> generated? At least this is what base/portmgr/ReleaseProcess says, and
> the dmgs have the "Created with MacPorts" logo.

I thought so too.

> The Portfile replaces some strings in the Readme and Welcome files for
> the dmgs, but no major difference is made the way MacPorts is build.