Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Grobian <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] Some Introduction
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:33:35
Message-Id: 43033C98.9070905@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] Some Introduction by Kito
Kito wrote:
> Yeah, again I'm not saying overwriting files is the way to go. I'm not > sure how much more clear I can be on that. I'm saying installing things > to / and trying to avoid overwriting files is not a good idea. > > So, again, just to make sure I'm being understood, installing to an > alternate prefix, i.e. /gentoo, /usr/local, /opt, whatever, is the way > to go and make portage a viable tool for OS X users. As Finn pointed out > in earlier mails, not using a prefix like Fink and DarwinPorts was never > a strategic decision, but a practical one. Its all that portage knew how > to do. > > Now, as far as portage having knowledge about what software is > installed...if it lived in its own prefix, that wouldn't be an issue, as > all package dependencies would be handled and installed by portage, > avoiding linking against OS X system libs as much as possible. This > would make it possible for instance to have /gentoo on say an external > drive that could be mounted and used on virtually any Mac OSX system, > regardless of system updates, etc. > > That being said, I feel like the name for such a tool shouldn't be > called 'Gentoo for OS X', as thats a very misleading name which seems to > cause a lot of confusion amongst users and developers alike. A much more > apt title IMHO would be 'Portage for Mac OS X', and leave the title > 'Gentoo for Mac OS X' for the profiles that actually manage system files.
Amen! Couldn't agree more. -- Fabian Groffen eBuild && Porting Gentoo for Mac OS X -- gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-osx] Some Introduction Finn Thain <fthain@××××××××××××××××.au>