Migration issue

[Adam Dershowitz]

> On Jan 6, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Russell Jones <russell.jones at physics.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 06/01/17 13:22, Adam Dershowitz wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 2017, at 2:20 AM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 2017, at 09:26, Adam Dershowitz wrote:
>>>> I just tried what you suggested for py27-numpy and it just activated without any error.
>>> Yes, there will not be an error at activation time. However, if you have anything installed that required py27-numpy to be universal, it will now be broken.
>>>> So, myports.txt has
>>>>  py27-numpy @1.11.3_0+gfortran (active) platform='darwin 15' archs='x86_64'
>>>> 
>>>> And, after the migration it had installed both that and the +universal variant.
>>>> Yet, when I tried to activate the non-universal version it did it without complaint.  So, I really don’t understand why the +universal got built at all.
>>>> Any suggestions?
>>> I don't have any answers for you, beyond the usual reasons why a port is installed universal, which are:
>>> 
>>> - you explicitly asked for it to be installed universal
>>> - you installed another port universal that depends on this port
>>> - you installed another port that is 32-bit only, and you are on a 64-bit machine, and the other port depends on this port (You can check if the other port says "supported_archs i386 ppc" (or the other way around))
>>> - it enables the universal by default, and possibly requires the universal variant to be used (You can check the portfile to see if "default_variants +universal" appears)
>> What seems really odd to me that I took I moved my myports.txt from one machine to another.  So, I used one machine to generate that list, and brought it to another machine to build.
>> Both are MacBook pros (one new and one old) and that same list, on the new machine, added a bunch of universal ports.  So, I don’t see how any of the items in the list above could do that.  If it was not universal on the old machine, why would it end up universal on the new machine?
>> Could going from 10.11 to 10.12 make something required to be universal?  Or could going from Xcode 7 to 8 make a port universal?  Because otherwise, I just don’t see why they should be different.
>> If anything, I would expect that the newer OS and newer hardware should be able to do more things as 64 bit, so would require less universal stuff.
>> 
>> —Adam
> Could you gzip and attach the list of ports from the old machine and the output of "port installed requested"?
> 
> The approach I suggested can't work, I now realize, as variants aren't used for working out dependencies ( https://trac.macports.org/wiki/FAQ#dependonvariant )
> 
> Russell
> 


Here are the two files.  

I don’t believe that I have ever intentionally installed anything +universal.  So, I’m fairly sure that anything in this list that is universal is because of 3, or 4 above.  But, when I then moved to the new machine, it proceeded to make a bunch more things universal.  

As far as I’m concerned pretty much all of my ports should just be installed with default variants, so few, if any, should be universal.  As everything is now working, this is not a big deal.  But, it does mean that upgrades often must be built, instead of using the binary, which would be much faster and use less drive space.  

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Requested and Installed.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 13178 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20170106/9f79c489/attachment.zip>
-------------- next part --------------


thanks,

—Adam