I was looking at how this might be rolled in as something like a
pseudo-architecture (e.g. darwin-universal-x86+x64+ppc64) to roll in the
various flags for different universal targets, and I think there may be some
significant side-effects. I haven't dug in to compare how it changes the
operati
to iterate
through the builds for everything you want rolled into the installed binaries,
but, hey, that's what macports is for.
As for which is more suitable, we've both had a chance to make our cases, so I
think we should get some feedback from others in the community.
On 27 Mar 2011,
irst
place, given that the former appears to be a more disruptive approach?
Regards,
Bayard
On 26 Mar 2011, at 07:58, Kaspar Brand wrote:
> On 23.03.2011 19:55, Bayard Bell wrote:
>> I've been doing some hacking to sort out remaining issues with
>> getting 32-bit build support
To establish context on the question: are you aware of the following in
RFC3280?:
The X.509 v2 CRL format also allows communities to define private extensions to
carry information unique to those communities. Each extension in a CRL may be
designated as critical or non-critical. A CRL validat
NSS community/maintainer types,
I've been doing some hacking to sort out remaining issues with getting 32-bit
build support on OS X 10.6, allowing for universal builds, and I wanted to make
sure I was headed in the right direction, such that what I'm doing might be
acceptable as patches. I've b
5 matches
Mail list logo
