We currently have 3787 ports. I expect a majority of these ports to fail building +universal. Do you really want emails sent out about 2000+ ports, and 2000+ changes to add the exact same behaviour? To put it simply, the universal variant paul added is not going to work for, I expect, a majority of ports. Thus, it should be an opt-in rather than an opt-out. On Feb 27, 2007, at 11:40 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Feb 27, 2007, at 13:49, Kevin Ballard wrote:
That said, I don't think it *should* list universal unless the port is actually known to work with it. Any proposed solutions?
I don't think anything needs to be done. I don't have any problem with the +universal variant being listed even if it doesn't work. If someone tries it and it does not work, then they should submit a bug report to the maintainer, just as they would for any other problem with the port. Then the maintainer will either fix it or add a universal variant which just outputs a us_msg explaining that a universal build is not available at this time. Problem solved.
-- Kevin Ballard http://kevin.sb.org eridius@macports.org http://www.tildesoft.com