[tex-live] use of x86_64-darwin only in mactex 2010
Justin C. Walker
justin at mac.com
Sun Jun 20 22:08:13 CEST 2010
On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:58 , Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>> I don't want to make too much of this, but there are a couple of
>> issues to consider:
>> - it may provide a (slight) savings of space to full universal
>> binaries (ppc, i386, x86_64) full universal binaries (ppc, i386,
>> x86_64). Maybe default is to install the universal binaries, with
>> an option to select a specific architecture ("lipo" can thin them
>> down). Once it's figured out, it's just a push of a button :-}
> The problem is that the x86_64 binaries won't run on 10.5, so lipoing
> them into a single 3-way universal binary won't work, since there's no
> way to force x86_64 to only run on 10.6 (the system will check
> LSMinimumSystemVersionByArchitecture, but that would be madness).
Tain't so. The devil's in the details, of course, but I just did (on
my 10.5.8 Mac Pro):
cc -o foo -arch ppc -arch i386 -arch x86_64 foo.c
I verified that all three archs were in the universal binary, and
then, just to be sure, did a "lipo -thin" on 'foo' to get the x86_64
version of foo. It worked just fine.
Of course, that doesn't mean you're wrong :-}
>> - some folk may have a bootable drive that they use on multiple
>> systems. Having "64-bit only" being the only option will screw
>> that up.
> I don't believe there are any circs under which it will be 64-bit
> All possible architectures are always installed under MacTeX.
I must have misread the the discussion. Sorry for the distraction.
Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large
Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds
Like the ski resort full of girls hunting for husbands
and husbands hunting for girls, the situation is not
as symmetrical as it might seem.
- Alan MacKay
More information about the tex-live