Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Kito <kito@g.o>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] Current status
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 04:34:53
Message-Id: D8B8984F-C068-456B-802D-F01135C29410@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] Current status by Hasan Khalil
On Jul 30, 2005, at 8:12 PM, Hasan Khalil wrote:

> > On Jul 30, 2005, at 19:21, Philipp Riegger wrote: > > >> My problem always was, i felt a bit uncomfortable with gentoo >> changing my OS X files. >> > > >> so i like the fink solution, to have an extra directory, which i >> can simply remove if i don't like it anymore or that i can simply >> change my PATH to have an origial OS X environment. >> >> Some time ago there was a discussion about those things, which way >> gentoo-osx should go, what to do and so. What about this >> discussion? Is the extra directory for gentoo-osx definetly dead >> and will not be used? Or are the changes to portage that would be >> neccessary to difficult? >> > > There really wasn't ever any discussion at length as to whether or > not we would support installing to a separate 'jail', as far as I > recall -- the decision was always that we would eventually support > such functionality. The main ongoing discussion is simply on [the > difficulties of] implementation. > > Currently, we support two modes of operation: the default > 'collision-protect' profile (a strict don't-touch-apple-provided- > files policy),
Just to be a semantic pain in the ass, / is an apple provided file... If you are worried about keeping a pristine OS X environment (read: still qualify as a 'supported configuration' for tech support, etc.) then installing portage on OS X in any of its current forms is not what you should be playing with. Portage installs files in /usr, / etc, /System and whereever else ebuild maintainers feel like putting stuff, , basically everywhere a 3rd party software vendor should never touch. A simple software update could kill your portage packages/config files...
> and the 'progressive' profile (a free-for-all overwrite-whatever- > you-want policy).
the progressive profile is anything but a 'free-for-all'. Its primary purpose is setting up the environment required to build the Darwin OS. Nothing that gets installed in a default configuration will break OS X. I use what are arguably the most demanding apps available for OS X(shake, Logic Pro, Final Cut Pro, etc.), and have been for almost a year now without any ill side effects from using the progressive profile.
> In the future we will support installing everything to some > location, for example '/opt/gentoo', to provide the best of both > worlds. In the meanwhile, the default (collision-protect) profile > sounds like what you're after; Apple-provided files are not allowed > to be overwritten when this profile is in use (there is a bug open > on symlinks being overwritten, but that is being taken care of and > is a fairly isolated situation).
I think Fink and/or DarwinPorts are more what hes after ;)
> > As of yet, portage is not suited for what we have now termed > 'pathspec', or 'installing to an alternate prefix', or 'using > portage as a secondary package manager', etc. Changes are being > made to portage that will allow for features like this, and should > be included in the next major release (some months away still). >
I think above and beyond the technical issues, are the practical issues. Gentoo is a linux based distro, sure it has some wacky redheaded stepchildren like bsd and macos, but cmon....noone uses those. The main problem as I see it, is you have a live tree of some ~10,000 linux based packages, with a userbase of >100,000 LINUX users, a dev team of >350 linux developers...how on earth do you convince these linux users and devs that a massively huge project like supporting arbitrary install prefixes is worth the trouble, especially when it would mostly benefit a sideproject with 3 devs and probably only slighty more users?
> The portage team has generally been very happy to receive help, if > you're interested.
Indeed...just be clear though, portage supporting this is merely the first step...it'll take quite along time to get packages in the tree that also support this. --Kito
> > I hope this clarifies things for you, and everyone else on this list. > > -- > > Hasan Khalil > eBuild and Porting Co-Lead > Gentoo for Mac OS X > >
-- gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-osx] Current status Hasan Khalil <gongloo@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-osx] Current status Philipp Riegger <lists@××××××××××××.de>
Re: [gentoo-osx] Current status Finn Thain <fthain@××××××××××××××××.au>
Re: [gentoo-osx] Current status Philipp Riegger <lists@××××××××××××.de>