Kito wrote:
> Yeah, again I'm not saying overwriting files is the way to go. I'm not 
> sure how much more clear I can be on that. I'm saying installing things 
> to / and trying to avoid overwriting files is not a good idea.
> 
> So, again, just to make sure I'm being understood, installing to an 
> alternate prefix, i.e. /gentoo, /usr/local, /opt, whatever, is the way 
> to go and make portage a viable tool for OS X users. As Finn pointed out 
> in earlier mails, not using a prefix like Fink and DarwinPorts was never 
> a strategic decision, but a practical one. Its all that portage knew how 
> to do.
> 
> Now, as far as portage having knowledge about what software is 
> installed...if it lived in its own prefix, that wouldn't be an issue, as 
> all package dependencies would be handled and installed by portage, 
> avoiding linking against OS X system libs as much as possible. This 
> would make it possible for instance to have /gentoo on say an external 
> drive that could be mounted and used on virtually any Mac OSX system,  
> regardless of system updates, etc.
> 
> That being said, I feel like the name for such a tool shouldn't be 
> called 'Gentoo for OS X', as thats a very misleading name which seems to 
> cause a lot of confusion amongst users and developers alike. A much more 
> apt title IMHO would be 'Portage for Mac OS X', and leave the title 
> 'Gentoo for Mac OS X' for the profiles that actually manage system files.

Amen!  Couldn't agree more.

-- 
Fabian Groffen
eBuild && Porting
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-- 
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list