Hi all: I've been lurking for the past little while and have been reading the arguments for both sides. I think something has been missed though. To have any meaningful discussion one must specify what is the target audience. Now, if one only considers the typical user as the one that will be using MacPorts, then having universal binaries is, of course, optional. BUT, if one includes developers in the MacPorts user audience, then this is a different story. Now, as for the messing up the Portfile thing. Yes, everyone agrees that having the universal binary hack in every Portfile is messy and undesirable. Please, stop bringing this up as it really is beating a dead horse at this point. Also, to assume that this is the only option for including this functionality is ridiculous. So, instead of trashing one bad idea (over and over), how about discussing ways that might get this wanted functionality in with minimal pain. A couple ideas have already been thrown out there. How about sticking to discussing those (or other ones)? It's just that I've seen so many discussions got south because of some people's tendency to hyper-focus on one little thing. It'd be a shame to see universal binaries not be implemented if only because of this. best regards, Reid ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail