1 |
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Grobian wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 12:54:53AM -0500, Kito wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > basically the proving ground for the portage base-system packages. |
6 |
> > Its also whats used for Darwin development, as building Darwin system |
7 |
> > packages requires a heavily modified OS X environment. I don't plan on |
8 |
> > deprecating it at all, if you feel strongly otherwise, maybe you |
9 |
> > should split the profiles up (again) and let the collision-protect |
10 |
> > profiles that install packages to / (non-prefixed) live in profiles/ |
11 |
> > default-macos and leave profiles/default-darwin for, well, darwin. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I would think that the current default-macos profiles should get |
14 |
> deprecated somehow in their current form and replaced by a prefix |
15 |
> thing... |
16 |
> |
17 |
> For me, non-collision-protect stuff is dangerous/progressive. By using |
18 |
> a prefix, a lot of (if not all of) the collision-protect issues should |
19 |
> go away (like with fink for example), hence if you then still want |
20 |
> something progressive, it will mean something else to me like it means |
21 |
> to me now. It will be a misunderstanding from my side, but a separation |
22 |
> of alt/darwin and alt/macos might be approriate at that stage, since |
23 |
> progressive/darwin then clearly has not the sole purpose to extend and |
24 |
> enrich an Apple OSX install. |
25 |
|
26 |
A progressive system should be able to use ppc-macos ebuilds. But, if the |
27 |
ppc-macos people only want to support a pure Apple root domain (the one |
28 |
with prefix /), then progressive work cannot come under alt/macos, and has |
29 |
to be a seperate alt/darwin project with its own "ppc-darwin" keyword. |
30 |
|
31 |
But, before alt/macos abandons support for an alt/darwin root prefix, it |
32 |
is worth noting that package.provided works best if you are only injecting |
33 |
darwin packages. That argument will hopefully become less relevant once |
34 |
you can dep on vendor packages. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Sounds more like progressive wants to build a Darwin system (perhaps |
37 |
> even kernel) with portage as package manager. This is completely cool, |
38 |
> but not my cup of tea, and a whole new definition of progressive to me. |
39 |
> So maybe we should start a new thread on what progressive actually |
40 |
> means/is? :) |
41 |
|
42 |
IMHO trying to define progressive or conservative would be futile until we |
43 |
get to play with the portage rewrite (domains and prefixes). |
44 |
|
45 |
-f |
46 |
-- |
47 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |