Adding configure options when installing a port

Stephen Langer stephen.langer at
Fri Jun 18 08:51:38 PDT 2010

On Jun 17, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> On Jun 16, 2010, at 19:31, Stephen Langer wrote:
>> Therefore it's a serious mistake for a packaging system to assume that it's ok to enable openmp in libraries.   A quick solution would be to provide both openmp and no-openmp variants, which would make users choose between fast stand-alone ImageMagick programs and libraries that can be linked by threaded apps.
> We don't need two variants; we only need one variant, "openmp", which the user can either enable or disable. It just remains a question as to whether the variant should be enabled by default or not. What I'm hearing is that we should disable it by default.
>> A better solution might be for the openmp and non-openmp versions of the libraries to have different names, so that both could be installed on the same system.
> Ugh. That sounds nasty.

Is it possible to build the openmp or non-openmp version with a different installation prefix?  ImageMagick says that that will work if it's necessary to have two coexisting versions.  That would be only a minor headache for authors of code that has to link to a particular version, and would allow macports to distribute both.

 -- Steve

-- stephen.langer at                    Tel: (301) 975-5423 --
--   Fax: (301) 975-3553 --
-- NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8910, Gaithersburg, Md 20899-8910 --

-- "I don't think this will work.  That's why it's science."      --
--                     Naomi Langer (age 6),  17 Feb 2003         --

More information about the macports-users mailing list