1 |
On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:57 AM, Finn Thain wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 3:51 AM, Finn Thain wrote: |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Finn Thain wrote: |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Kito wrote: |
12 |
>>>> |
13 |
>>>>> |
14 |
>>>>> On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Grobian wrote: |
15 |
>>>>> |
16 |
>>>>> On a somewhat related note, we need to decide sooner than later on |
17 |
>>>>> how distinguish between the collision-protect and |
18 |
>>>>> non-collision-protected profiles in ebuilds, as some things that |
19 |
>>>>> are getting in the tree break with a proper gentoo environment, |
20 |
>>>>> mostly auto{conf,make} issues at the moment (-a -c -f stuff, |
21 |
>>>>> etc) , |
22 |
>>>>> as well as python issues creeping up as well, but this will |
23 |
>>>>> probably get more convoluted very shortly... |
24 |
>>> |
25 |
>>> [snip] |
26 |
>>>> |
27 |
>>>> Now, if an ebuild needs to know that it has "2nd class" status, |
28 |
>>>> wouldn't a use flag be appropriate? And if you were to implement |
29 |
>>>> such |
30 |
>>>> a use flag, could it not be useful to other second-class citizens? |
31 |
>>>> For example, in "portage for non-Gentoo Linux" or "portage for |
32 |
>>>> solaris" profiles. |
33 |
>>> |
34 |
>>> Actually, such a use flag is probably redundant. Isn't that what the |
35 |
>>> the "macos" in "ppc-macos" is for? |
36 |
>> |
37 |
>> Well, thats part of the problem. As Darwin is not self-hosting |
38 |
>> currently, it requires a highly modified OS X environment(read: |
39 |
>> progressive profile) to built it, and the progressive profile |
40 |
>> shares the |
41 |
>> same keyword, *-macos, with the collision-protected profile. Another |
42 |
>> keyword isn't really feasible, I was thinking more along the lines |
43 |
>> of a |
44 |
>> variable added to the use-expand list in the profiles. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> I just read http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82513 |
47 |
> |
48 |
> What did happen to GLEP 22? |
49 |
> |
50 |
> I have to say, I find the idea of over-loading the collision- |
51 |
> protect hack |
52 |
> with new macos-specific meaning inside N different ebuilds (by |
53 |
> FEATURES |
54 |
> expansion) quite unpleasant. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> To my mind, progressive implies keyword=ppc-darwin/ppc-od, and "2nd |
57 |
> class" |
58 |
> implies ppc-macos and that implies a prefix (substitute x86 or x64 |
59 |
> for ppc |
60 |
> as you see fit). |
61 |
> |
62 |
> I don't think it likely that apple will open source Mac OS X (or |
63 |
> eleven, |
64 |
> or even system seven). I mean, is it likely that a macos profile could |
65 |
> ever be anything but second fiddle? |
66 |
|
67 |
The progressive profile already is, and getting moreso as it matures. |
68 |
fex it can/will be used to merge macos components from Apple |
69 |
installation media. So it is in fact handling the compilation of the |
70 |
'bsd' portion of OS X from source as well as managing the proprietary |
71 |
libs and tools like CoreAudio, XCode, etc. This way, packages can do |
72 |
things like "DEPEND='>=dev-util/xcode2.1 >=media-sound/coreaudio'" |
73 |
and so on. So used in this manner, portage is anything but a second |
74 |
class citizen as everything in / is in fact managed by portage. |
75 |
|
76 |
Even once prefixed installs are available I intend to continue |
77 |
development in this area to facilitate extremely minimal OS X |
78 |
installs for specialized applications. |
79 |
|
80 |
--Kito |
81 |
|
82 |
> |
83 |
> -f |
84 |
> |
85 |
>> |
86 |
>>> |
87 |
>>> I suspect the whole question goes away when portage gets |
88 |
>>> prefixes. So my |
89 |
>>> post was probably just noise. Sorry. |
90 |
>>> |
91 |
>>> -f |
92 |
>>> -- |
93 |
>>> gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
94 |
>>> |
95 |
>> |
96 |
>> |
97 |
> -- |
98 |
> gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
99 |
> |
100 |
|
101 |
-- |
102 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |