Do I need +universal to be used when installing ports?

Richard L. Hamilton rlhamil at
Sat Apr 29 15:13:50 UTC 2017

In favor of getting rid of it, the pre-built binaries (much faster to install or upgrade) aren't built +universal; so if you get rid of it, you'll often get them.  Some things aren't pre-built, so you won't always get them, but it's still way faster.

There may be some ports or port options that need i386 (I don't know), but they should do the right thing.  (that's not based on massive familiarity, so someone that knows more than I may know of exceptions to that statement)

I would _guess_ therefore, that it would only matter if you have i386 code of your own that links with libraries provided by MacPorts.  You'd be the one that would know that.

> On Apr 28, 2017, at 11:06, Barrie Stott <zen146410 at> wrote:
> I have an iMac as my only computer and am near the beginning of installing ports for Sierra so it’s a good time to change from +universal way of working to -universal; it should save space and installations should be quicker. Does anyone know any good reasons why I should not go ahead? Are there situations where x86_64 cannot be used and i386 is necessary? Once I know which way to jump I can set some defaults and thereafter I suspect that installation would be the same.
> Barrie.
> _______________________________________________
> macports-users mailing list
> macports-users at

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <>

More information about the macports-users mailing list