rdm at cfcl.com
Sat Jul 4 14:49:02 PDT 2009
At 17:01 -0400 7/4/09, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2009, at 11:15 , Rainer Müller wrote:
> I read that as "relocatable" in the object/symbol table sense
> (which I'm not sure applies to PPC).
Strictly speaking, it may not. What I was thinking about, in
any case, was the issue of linking compiler output files (eg,
foo.o) with libraries (eg, bar.a) to produce executable binary
images (eg, foo).
I don't really care if MacPorts supports cross-compilation, let
alone produces universal binaries. The key issue is whether the
user gets a WTF experience after moving (and even using, for a
while) the /opt tree.
A really simple solution would be for the port command to look
at the current architecture type, compare it to what it expects,
and issue a simple nastygram if it differs. Like:
Cannot mix ppc and x86 architectures - bailing out...
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm Rich Morin
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/resume rdm at cfcl.com
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/weblog +1 650-873-7841
Technical editing and writing, programming, and web development
More information about the macports-users