From: Kees B. <kee...@xs...> - 2010-08-24 07:21:12
|
On Tuesday 24 August 2010, David R. Morrison wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Kees Bakker wrote: > > > PS and BTW. If the Fink packages were build as "fat binaries" for i386 and ppc > > I would never have tried to use my own framework. > > Let me comment about why we don't do this. For a large percentage of open > source packages (the figure 80% is bandied about) one could simply run "make" > twice with appropriate options and then lipo all the libs and binaries > together. This could obviously be automated by Fink. > > However, we would have to work hard for the additional 10% or 20% -- lots of > special cases there. And this is pretty much an all-or-nothing proposition: > either Fink is built with fat binaries and then every Fink compile can > correctly assume that all libs it accesses are fat, or not -- otherwise, > we would need a mechanism to specify which packages were fat and which > weren't, and the dependency checking on that would be horrendous. > > Had Fink begun after OS X on i386 had been introduced, the story might be > different... Of course these days, one can argue in favor of including 4 > architectures (i386/x86_64/ppc/ppc64) which might even grow in the future, > if open source compiling on Apple's chips for mobile devices ever gets > going... > > -- Dave Thanks David, for this insightful information. I didn't know you can "lipo binaries together". I'll investigate that some more. Kind regards, Kees Bakker |