Hmm, ok. That makes sense, since I upgraded with an installed macports
base. I suppose I should really reinstall all then, since otherwise I
will end up with a crazy mix? Though, per default on Leopard
compilation seems to be 32 bit. When you just compile something
without further options pointer size is 32bit. Only when you specify -
arch x86_64 or -m64 do you get 64bit. So it would really make sense to
have both (but not ppc). So I would vote for an autamatic variant to
get intel only 32/64bit.
Daniel
Am 10.12.2007 um 01:33 schrieb Ryan Schmidt:
On Dec 9, 2007, at 14:43, Daniel Oberhoff wrote:
Now that Leopard is out and already at 10.5.1 will macports be
supporting 64bit libraries? It's just I need 64bit in my octave
installation. I pull my octave from octave.org's cvs, but it needs
quite a lot of support libraries. From what I gather it should be
possible on Leopard to build fat libraries, i.e. ones that contain
64 and 32 bit code (i think it works using -arch x84_64 -arch i686
as gcc flags). Or will this be left to the separate ports?
MacPorts is supposed to build libraries for whatever system it's
running on. So I would have thought that if you're on a 64-bit Intel
system, it should build 64-bit Intel libraries. Is it building 32-
bit Intel libraries for you?
We have the +universal variant for building 2-way (32-bit, Intel and
PowerPC) universal binaries. We are still in the process of getting
this to work with many of the ports. It could be changed to build 4-
way (32-bit and 64-bit, Intel and PowerPC) universal binaries. This
should be possible on Tiger too, as far as I know. It won't fix any
ports that are having trouble building 2-way universal binaries. Not
sure if it would mess up any ports that are already working. Are all
the ports that you need already working as 2-way universal binaries?
I haven't heard anyone suggest building libraries that contain 32-
bit and 64-bit code for just one processor family before (in
relation to MacPorts). It would of course be possible, but I think
it would make most sense to continue along our current path:
software should be default install for the architecture you're on,
and if you need multiple architectures, then you need the +universal
variant.
It has been said before that maybe 64-bit binaries aren't all that
helpful, but the Ars Technica review of Leopard explains that while
64-bit binaries aren't that helpful on the PowerPC architecture,
they really are quite good for secondary reasons on the Intel
architecture. The 32-bit Intel architecture has often been called
inferior to the 32-bit PowerPC architecture, but the 64-bit Intel
architecture seems to fix many of the issues. Also, maybe Leopard
being a full 64-bit system makes 64-bit binaries more relevant.
Perhaps we could do 4-way universal binaries only when MacPorts is
running on Leopard.... but that might be a bad idea, since only
people running Leopard could then develop and test this.
We could introduce a new automatic variant... +universal4?
+universal64? People could test with this new variant and if any
problems are encountered it would not prevent anyone from using the
existing 2-way 32-bit +universal variant. I'm wary of this though...
I wouldn't want, say, "universal64" directives to start appearing in
portfiles, if we want to eventually fold +universal64 into +universal.
Just some thoughts off the top of my head.
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
