upgrade observations

Rich Morin 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 mailing list