#57133 closed defect (fixed)
Don't offer universal variant when multiple architectures aren't supported
Reported by: | ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt) | Owned by: | jmroot (Joshua Root) |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | MacPorts 2.7.0 |
Component: | base | Version: | 2.5.99 |
Keywords: | mojave haspatch | Cc: | cooljeanius (Eric Gallager) |
Port: |
Description
When the universal variant was added in MacPorts 1.4.0, it was probably not anticipated that we would one day again have a version of macOS that would not support multiple architectures. But Apple has stated that macOS 10.14 Mojave will have reduced 32-bit support and that macOS 10.15 will remove 32-bit support completely. This will cause numerous problems that we need to resolve.
A change has already been committed to base to set universal_archs to just x86_64 on Mojave and later. MacPorts prints a warning if universal_archs contains only one arch, because current MacPorts base code considers that condition to be invalid. This was changed to only print the warning on High Sierra and earlier. I propose instead to remove the warning entirely, and to disable the universal variant (on any system version) if universal_archs
contains only one arch.
I think we can successfully disable the universal variant by introducing special handling for the universal variant in proc variant
and proc variant_isset
.
Currently, no special handling for the universal variant exists in proc variant
. If a port or portgroup defines a universal variant with variant universal {...}
, it will be created, and many ports do create the universal variant this way. It would be tedious to have to modify each Portfile to handle this situation, so I propose we change proc variant
so that if the variant name is universal
and universal_archs
contains only one arch, the variant is not created.
Similarly, currently, no special handling for the universal variant exists in proc variant_isset
. And variant_isset
has the perhaps somewhat unexpected behavior that a variant can be set even if that variant is not defined. If a user runs sudo port install someport +foo
, [variant_isset foo]
will return yes
even if the port has not defined variant foo
. Normally this would not be a problem—why would a port contain code to check if a variant is set if it had not defined that variant?—but with the universal variant it becomes a problem, because many ports define an empty universal variant and then check if [variant_isset universal]
. Modifying each port to check if [variant_exists universal]
first would be tedious, so I propose we change proc variant_isset
so that if the variant name is universal
and universal_archs
contains only one arch, it returns no
. I'm not certain if this change will have any adverse consequences, because I don't understand why proc variant_isset
has this peculiar behavior.
Many ports state a preference for the universal variant using default_variants +universal
. I'm hopeful that no additional changes will be needed to handle that, beyond the changes described above.
There are currently three ports that force the universal variant using variant_set universal
(angband, fakeroot, perforce). These ports should be fixed so that they can install for single architectures. We may want to modify variant_set
to error out if the variant name is universal
and universal_archs
contains only one arch.
Change History (6)
comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)
comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
No, that was a different situation which was already resolved.
comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
Keywords: | haspatch added |
---|
comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)
Milestone: | MacPorts 2.6.0 → MacPorts 2.7.0 |
---|
Ticket retargeted after milestone closed
comment:5 Changed 4 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)
Owner: | set to jmroot |
---|---|
Resolution: | → fixed |
Status: | new → closed |
comment:6 Changed 4 years ago by cooljeanius (Eric Gallager)
Cc: | cooljeanius added |
---|
Dupe of #29786?