Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Finn Thain <fthain@××××××××××××××××.au>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:09:34
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.63.0508250228380.7632@loopy.telegraphics.com.au
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos by Kito
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:

> >On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote: > > > > > >What I'm saying is that you cannot build Mac OS X, Apple will not > >permit that. If you wan't to install X Code, you have to script apple's > >installer to do it. That is 2nd fiddle. > > Erm, no. It installs by extracting the files from the installation media > similar to how other closed source software is installed via portage, > doom, UTK2004, vmware, etc. Maybe we have different ideas of what > 'second-fiddle' means. I interpret that as portage existing on a system > with a specified set of fake deps in package.provided. IMHO portage is > not second fiddle when it manages all files on the system.
Porage still has to answer to the macos installer, for two reasons: - the macos installer will run around changing stuff without asking or telling portage (unless you can build a system without that installer). - most users don't want an OS X system without that installer (and software update). I'm not saying portage can't do it all (down to lipo-suctioning, creating Receipts files and all), I'm just saying that portage doesn't need to. I'd also say that Gentoo devs have better things to do than maintain tools to track a proprietary packaging system. IOW, I think it would be a mistake to try to upstage the soloist.
> > >Even once prefixed installs are available I intend to continue > > >development in this area to facilitate extremely minimal OS X > > >installs for specialized applications. > > > >I applaud this. But I think calling that profile "macos" is a misnomer. > > Where do you draw the line? If during a macos install I choose not to > install all options available is it no longer macos proper? Macos to me > implies CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua. Tons of other closed-source > frameworks make up MacOS as well of course, but if you add > CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua to a Darwin system, its macos IMHO.
I didn't realise that you were unpacking the .pkgs without using /usr/sbin/installer. I can see why you would call such a profile macos. However, if I wanted binary packages, I wouldn't choose Gentoo, and I don't think it makes a lot of sense to have a profile called macos that doesn't build macos from source. This is, of course, impossible.
> >That's why I suggested calling upstream darwin, "ppc-darwin". The fact > >that it isn't called macos doesn't imply macos and macos packages > >cannot be supported on it. > > The default-darwin profile is just that, though not currently a valid > profile with its own keyword, but all macos profiles inherit from that. > > If you have a Darwin system with the closed source macos libs installed, > its no longer Darwin as it tends to all come back to the difference > between CoreFoundation(macos) and CF-Lite(Darwin/OpenDarwin). I think I > see what you are saying, I just don't agree :p Anyway you look at it its > all rather semantical, but needs to be addressed nonetheless.
Yep. Following your semantics, could "progressive" (ppc-macos) be likened to "2nd fiddle" (ppc-darwin), but without the prefix? -f
> Of course, when apple finally gets fed up with the warez kiddies running > OS X on greybox crap and stops doing source releases, this will all > become irrelevant anyway :p
-- gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos Kito <kito@g.o>