On Jan 2, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Kevin Ballard wrote:

If you're going to distribute software, you don't want to build it with macports (because all the linker paths will be absolute and pointing at /opt/local, which is not how you want to distribute anything). Because of this, I don't think crosscompiling is an issue, since when building just for yourself, you don't need the other architecture.

I'm a little puzzled by this statement.  Unless you're willing to make all of your distributed applications and libraries into bundles, which is quite a bit of work that most folks aren't willing to go to anyway, you're going to have hard-coded linker paths pointing somewhere no matter what you do!   Since you also can't install directly into locations like /usr/bin and /usr/lib (well, you can, but a special hit squad of Mac OS X engineers will be dispatched to terminate you and your software with extreme prejudice if you do), /opt/local is as good a location as /sw, /usr/local or pretty much any other location you might come up with.

In fact, if the MacPorts project ever gets off its collective duff and starts distributing binary packages (in some, any, package format) like was originally intended at the start of all this, one can reasonably expect to see a lot of users whacking stuff into /opt/local without really even being aware of it.

As a note, I once downloaded a program which had just released a new version that used openjade for HTML validation. It didn't work. Why? Because the author had built openjade using MacPorts and bundled it that way. It worked fine on his system, but on anybody else's system it was looking for libraries in /opt/local/lib that simply weren't there. Beware distribution of MacPorts-built binaries.

No offense, but you're barking up the wrong tree with that analysis.   The problem wasn't that the author had built openjade using MacPorts, the problem was that he didn't instruct you to install the dependent libraries as well or simply bundle them with his software too.  That's one of the reasons that the MacPorts community always gets so hung up on package management - they want to distribute packages, but they also want to ensure that any system which installs those packages also follows dependencies, deals with upgrades and otherwise handles all the messy details of making that software work exactly the way it did on the package author's system.

Someday, one hopes, MacPorts will finally reach parity with its FreeBSD/Gentoo/Red Hat cousins and offer such a collection, after which problems like the ones you're describing will go away and be replaced by an entirely new and different set of problems which, at least, will be interesting and relevant to a wider audience. :-)

- Jordan

On Jan 2, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Pau Arumi wrote:

nowadays is very common that osx software is distributed as universal binaries, so i'm quite sure somebody have tried to crosscompile (intel+powerpc) some macports libraries.
i'd need to do that for a handful of libraries, so, before starting my experiments i'd like to hear some previous experiences.

do you think its worth trying it? or is definitely better to use two (intel and powerpc) boxes to produce binaries and then combine them with lipo? [1]

-- 
Kevin Ballard
http://kevin.sb.org
eridius@macports.org
http://www.tildesoft.com


_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users