| 1 |
[oops, it should be "I should note" :)] |
| 2 |
--- |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
also, I should note that using the keywords "ppc-macos ~ppc-macos ppc" |
| 5 |
, the wonderful tool 'ddd' installed flawlessly :) |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Cheers, |
| 8 |
Patrick |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On Aug 1, 2005, at 1:13 PM, P. A. A. wrote: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> also, I should not that using the keywords "ppc-macos ~ppc-macos ppc" |
| 14 |
> , the wonderful tool 'ddd' installed flawlessly :) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Cheerd, |
| 17 |
> Patrick |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> On Jul 31, 2005, at 2:29 AM, Finn Thain wrote: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Kito wrote: |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>>> |
| 27 |
>>> On Jul 30, 2005, at 8:12 PM, Hasan Khalil wrote: |
| 28 |
>>> |
| 29 |
>>>> As of yet, portage is not suited for what we have now termed |
| 30 |
>>>> 'pathspec', or |
| 31 |
>>>> 'installing to an alternate prefix', or 'using portage as a |
| 32 |
>>>> secondary package |
| 33 |
>>>> manager', etc. Changes are being made to portage that will allow |
| 34 |
>>>> for features |
| 35 |
>>>> like this, and should be included in the next major release (some |
| 36 |
>>>> months away |
| 37 |
>>>> still). |
| 38 |
>>>> |
| 39 |
>>> |
| 40 |
>> [snip] |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>>> The main problem as I see it, is you have a live tree of some |
| 43 |
>>> ~10,000 linux based packages, with a userbase of >100,000 LINUX |
| 44 |
>>> users, a |
| 45 |
>>> dev team of >350 linux developers...how on earth do you convince |
| 46 |
>>> these |
| 47 |
>>> linux users and devs that a massively huge project like supporting |
| 48 |
>>> arbitrary install prefixes is worth the trouble, especially when it |
| 49 |
>>> would mostly benefit a sideproject with 3 devs and probably only |
| 50 |
>>> slighty |
| 51 |
>>> more users? |
| 52 |
>> |
| 53 |
>> Remember that for some of us, it doesn't matter if no more than a tiny |
| 54 |
>> fraction of ebuilds work. One should not confuse Gentoo (i.e. the |
| 55 |
>> portage |
| 56 |
>> tree) with Portage itself. Non-Gentoo developers, distros and O/S's |
| 57 |
>> can |
| 58 |
>> benefit from a portable portage, even if it comes with an empty |
| 59 |
>> portage |
| 60 |
>> tree. By "portable portage", I mean that it would support new ebuilds |
| 61 |
>> that |
| 62 |
>> will play nicely on arbitrary host. |
| 63 |
>> |
| 64 |
>> But the question remains, how to bring the existing ebuilds along for |
| 65 |
>> the |
| 66 |
>> ride? Kito is right that most linux devs aren't going to care too |
| 67 |
>> much. |
| 68 |
>> Most of them are not in a position to test their ebuilds on half a |
| 69 |
>> dozen |
| 70 |
>> different platforms. But then, they don't all test on half a dozen |
| 71 |
>> different linux architectures anyway. |
| 72 |
>> |
| 73 |
>> Hasan, you mentioned pathspec and prefixed installs, and future |
| 74 |
>> portage |
| 75 |
>> features to accomodate these. Is there more information available |
| 76 |
>> anywhere |
| 77 |
>> on the portage roadmap and the particular future portage features you |
| 78 |
>> are |
| 79 |
>> referring to? |
| 80 |
>> |
| 81 |
>> -f |
| 82 |
>> -- |
| 83 |
>> gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
| 84 |
>> |
| 85 |
> |
| 86 |
> -- |
| 87 |
> gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
| 88 |
> |
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
-- |
| 91 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
Archives