Well, how do you propose building things for different architectures on a build machine without a cross compiler? Unless you have a build machine for each architecture type, PPC (G4 and G5) and Intel, then you would have to use one. I don't much see the point in universal binaries in regard to MacPorts. If you have to build every package yourself, why bother? I certainly don't. It seems to me like a better effort would be to provide pre-built packages ala Debian, et al. On 10/26/07, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign@macports.org> wrote:
Although, someone would need to step up and maintain a cross compiler port for the maintainers. That would make it easier for the port maintainers to build the packages. If they could do something like `port package +g4 +g5 +intel`, I'm sure the idea would go over a lot better.
Surely we don't need anything like that. Anyway, it wouldn't be a cross compiler port that we would need. Rather, each port would need to have this capability retrofitted. It would be very similar to the +universal variant we're already trying to retrofit into ports. I would much rather we continue working on perfecting that, rather than introducing ways to cross-compile things, a capability which would probably not be very well tested and therefore buggy.
-- James Sumners http://james.roomfullofmirrors.com/ "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted." Missionaria Protectiva, Text QIV (decto) CH:D 59