<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:07 AM, René J.V. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rjvbertin@gmail.com" target="_blank">rjvbertin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'm curious though, what ports rely on i386 meaning "Intel, 32 or 64 bit" rather than "Intel, 32 bit", directly in their Portfile rather than indirectly through "base"? I find that confusing and it often makes me pause when I see the term appear in the log of a build I know should be for 64-bit (and it feels to me to be as smart as using an undocumented feature ;)).</blockquote></div><br>Remember that OS X goes to great lengths to hide 32 vs. 64 bit distinctions; 32 bit OS X kernels were perfectly capable of running 64 bit binaries on 64-bit CPUs, at least on Intel. So some of this comes down to "Apple so decreed and it's much easier to play along than to try to make OS X act differently". In particular, see how arch(1) works.<br><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates</div><div><a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a> <a href="mailto:ballbery@sinenomine.net" target="_blank">ballbery@sinenomine.net</a></div><div>unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad <a href="http://sinenomine.net" target="_blank">http://sinenomine.net</a></div></div></div>
</div></div>