Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-osx
Lists: gentoo-osx: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: gentoo-osx@g.o
From: Grobian <grobian@g.o>
Subject: Re: xorg-x11
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:48:46 +0200
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:00:32PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> If you take the long view, and assume that we will get prefixes sooner 
> than later, then devs should be aiming for _maximum_ collisions, since 
> from a darwin point of view, that means better interoperability with 
> Apple's open source work.

That simply requires people to have machines for this.  I don't have
machines floating around, and I'm fore sure not willing to buy hardware
or make my box into an even more unstable thing than it is already right
now (try to attach an iPod to it, and it completely goes nuts for
examplei, yeah, it's just Windows(tm)(r)).  From a managerial point of
view, your note sounds correct to me, but considering the resources,
it's not simply done.  Unless after this mail two or three people step
forward that are willing to do this maximum collision stuff.

> If you take a compromise, you might end up with fewer collisions in the 
> short term, but you make it harder for Gentoo/Darwin and "progressive" to 
> interoperate with Gentoo/macos and Apple.

We cannot control collisions, at least not the real ones.  They are
there and doing something about it, usually results in having more work
to do once we get a prefix.

> That is why I argued against moving the perl executable, for example. And 
> it is also why I argued for stabling packages with collisions. I was 
> simply taking the long view, and trying to avoid rework for the 
> gentoo/darwin project.

I don't like to solve perl for the current situation.  It is typically
something that should be dealt with in a prefix.  If someone wants to
install it on a progressive box, please do so.

> As for the "conservative" profile, it doesn't have many users, and will 
> not have until we get prefixes, so why optimise for "collision-protect"?

Given the reponses and signals I see, there are even less progressive
users, so why optimise for them for now and screw my box to try and
stable those ebuilds?  If someone else wants to do it, fine with me, but
it simply seems not to be an option, as noone wants to do this.

I simply only want to keyword those things that for instance Dirk now
points out that already works, and probably also will work in a prefix.
You can call it lazy or short sighted, but to me it's just a matter of
resources, and especially hardware resources I don't have.  If I'd have
access to a machine I could screw by installing for instance GCC via
portage, then I'd try it out to see if it compiles and eventually
keyword and mask it.  I simply don't have it!

Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list

Re: xorg-x11
-- Finn Thain
-- Mike
Re: xorg-x11
-- Lina Pezzella
Re: xorg-x11
-- Grobian
Re: xorg-x11
-- Kito
Re: xorg-x11
-- Grobian
Re: xorg-x11
-- Finn Thain
Re: xorg-x11
-- Grobian
Re: xorg-x11
-- Finn Thain
Lists: gentoo-osx: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: xorg-x11
Next by thread:
Re: xorg-x11
Previous by date:
Re: xorg-x11
Next by date:
Re: xorg-x11

Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-osx mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.