So, do we have an agreement on this? Any objections to turning on warnings against /Library/Frameworks in the upcoming MacPorts 1.6? I support to move to discourage writing to that directory, gcc's -F flag should allow any application needing a framework to look for it under prefix, just as Anders makes it clean in his message. Any reason why we *shouldn't* move our frameworks into prefix? And as for macports1.0, we can still rely on configure's --with- tclpackage flag to place it inside prefix in customized installations. Regards,... -jmpp On Nov 4, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Or actually it doesn't trigger a warning, but it should...
Frameworks _should_ go into ${prefix}/Library/Frameworks instead, just like the various Pythons do at the moment. Tcl and Applications might require "workarounds"* due to bugs/shortcomings in other software, but not Frameworks ?
However, this does require that the -F flag is passed - just like the -I and -L flags are being passed already: (I have a patch for GCC 3.3.x, should it ever be needed, GCC 4.x.y has framework support, at least for the params)
CPPFLAGS += -F${prefix}/Library/Frameworks LDFLAGS += -F${prefix}/Library/Frameworks
# the Xcode setting is FRAMEWORK_SEARCH_PATHS
Prime violators are the libsdl*-framework ports, and also (indirectly) everything that uses them as well... Installing into /Library/Frameworks isn't any more "OK" than installing into /usr/local/include,/usr/local/lib !
Could this tree policy be changed for MacPorts 1.6.0 ? --anders
* Preferrably the current /Library/Tcl/macports1.0 and /Applications/MacPorts would be symlinks to ${prefix}. But that doesn't work apparently, due to shortcomings in AppKit and Cocoa when using with Services/Xcode ?
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev