Re: pkg/36953 (Darwin/8.10 PowerPC build of pkgsrc binary kit fails to compile)

[Jesse Peterson <jpeterson275%comcast.net@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/36953; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Jesse Peterson <jpeterson275%comcast.net@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>,
 darwin-pkg-people%netbsd.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost,
 pkgsrc-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: pkg/36953 (Darwin/8.10 PowerPC build of pkgsrc binary kit fails
 to compile)
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:53:14 -0800

 On Tue,  6 Nov 2007 14:50:02 +0000 (UTC)
 Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:
 
 > From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>
 > To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
 > Cc: 
 > Subject: Re: pkg/36953 (Darwin/8.10 PowerPC build of pkgsrc binary kit
 >      fails to compile)
 > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:34:46 +0100
 > 
 >  On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:45:02AM +0000, Jesse Peterson wrote:
 >  >  Apologies for the delay in my response. I cannot determine if the issue 
 > is fixed
 >  >  as pkg_install is now  getting missing symbols for bzip2 in the ppc64 
 > and x86_64
 >  >  architectures. An Intel Mac is building this:
 >  
 >  Does it actually build libbz2 before this? Or does it use the system
 >  library? If it isn't, you can try by adding
 >  USE_BUILTIN.bzip2=no
 >  directly before line 96 in pkgsrc/pkgtools/pkg_install/Makefile.
 
 Tried that fix - same result.
 
 It would appear that Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger doesn't include quad-universal 
binaries of libbz2. The newest Developer Tools (Xcode), version 2.5, has a copy 
of /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk/usr/lib/libbz2.dylib that is only has ppc 
and i386 architectures.
 
 However it appears that Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard things build just fine. I dont 
have a Leopard machine right in front of me at the moment but because I was 
able to successfully build the binary kit on a Leopard machine I'm assuming 
things are fine.
 
 So that some people don't have to go editing Makefiles to get their binary 
kit's supported might there be a simpler solution that automatically determines 
the proper binary kit flags? Perhaps one of:
  - An option to NOT compile universal binaries
  - An option to pick which architectures for the universal binaries
    - As an aside here many of Apple's binaries are only dual-architecture. Is 
there a good reason to be build all four?
 
 Also as an aside I think there's value in choosing whether or not to use a 
package installer versus a tarball for the binary kit package.
 
 Thanks,
 - Jesse