checking for gcc

Thomas De Contes d.l.tDeContes at
Wed Jun 10 16:49:21 PDT 2009

Le 30 mai 09 à 17:40, Rainer Müller a écrit :

> On 2009-05-30 17:12, Thomas De Contes wrote:
> [...]
>> ... i don't understand why you prefer (1) for MacPorts itself
>> since Ryan Schmidt uses (2) for ports, i don't see what kind of
>> avantage you get using (1) for MacPorts itself
> It allows to build base with another compiler and it makes it more  
> portable.
>> i fully understand Ryan's choice, and finally I agree with him
>> what aren't you agreement in what he said with ?
> As I explained in my previous mail ...
>> and anyway, i find that it's better to have MacPorts homogeneous,
>> between itself and its ports, don't you think ?
> ... I still see no reason to restrict building MacPorts itself to a
> specific compiler. Users building MacPorts from source are expected to
> know what they are doing.

ah, ok,
i just understand why what Ryan Schmidt says about ports is not  
applicable to MacPorts itself ...

basic users are expected to compile ports but not MacPorts itself,  
they are expected to install binaries of MacPorts itself :-)
sorry, i forgot it :-)

> Having MacPorts installation with a different prefix in PATH during
> configure might fail anyway if certain ports are installed (e.g. tcl).
> Therefore, use a clean environment with the system's default PATH  
> if you
> don't want to use MacPorts for that.

well, i need to compile MacPorts because i don't want to give it root  

it's not very constraining,
just, sometimes i have tinny problems, and in general there is a  
solution :-)

but it may be very annoying, if the installation of some ports avoids  
to rebuild MacPorts :-(

is there a simple way to use the system's default PATH, just for the  
time to build MacPorts ?

(note that i don't ask that it would be the defaut, so developers who  
want to make any kind of tests with MacPorts are able to continue  
it :-) )

Téléassistance / Télémaintenance

More information about the macports-users mailing list