[tex-live] use of x86_64-darwin only in mactex 2010

[Justin C. Walker]

On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:58 , Adam R. Maxwell wrote:

>
> On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
[snip]
>> 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  
> only.
> All possible architectures are always installed under MacTeX.

I must have misread the the discussion.  Sorry for the distraction.

Justin

--
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
--