dersh at alum.mit.edu
Wed Jan 4 01:13:42 CET 2017
That port actually got fixed quickly, so the specific problem is gone.
But, the situation still has me curious. Why should just moving myports.txt end up with a bunch more universal ports on the new machine? Is it a difference between 10.11 and 10.12?
On January 3, 2017 7:35:00 PM EST, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 2017, at 14:12, Adam Dershowitz <dersh at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> I am trying to get an existing set of ports into a new machine.
>> I ended up wiping /opt/local on the new machine, so I'm just using
>the migration script and myports.txt. So it is a fresh macports
>> My problem seems to be that I had Xer installed on the old machine
>(2012 MacBook pro with OS 10.11 ) as a dependant to something else. On
>the new machine it keeps trying to put xer +universal. And that build
>fails. (I create a ticket for the xer +universal build.)
>> But I would like to be able to get other ports working. Can anyone
>suggest why it wants to install this port +universal variant, when the
>old machine was not?
>> I can install the default variant, which grabs the binary. But, then
>when I try to run the migration script it tries to upgrade to the other
>variant, from source, and fails.
>> I did try removing the xer line from myports.txt but it didn't help
>(the line just had the default variant)
>I don't see a port "xer"; I assume you mean "xar".
>I guess you're trying to install a port that depends on xar. llvm-3.9
>depends on xar, and cctools and ld64 depend on llvm-3.9. Maybe you're
>trying to install one of those with the universal variant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the macports-users