1 |
Kito wrote: |
2 |
> Yeah, again I'm not saying overwriting files is the way to go. I'm not |
3 |
> sure how much more clear I can be on that. I'm saying installing things |
4 |
> to / and trying to avoid overwriting files is not a good idea. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> So, again, just to make sure I'm being understood, installing to an |
7 |
> alternate prefix, i.e. /gentoo, /usr/local, /opt, whatever, is the way |
8 |
> to go and make portage a viable tool for OS X users. As Finn pointed out |
9 |
> in earlier mails, not using a prefix like Fink and DarwinPorts was never |
10 |
> a strategic decision, but a practical one. Its all that portage knew how |
11 |
> to do. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Now, as far as portage having knowledge about what software is |
14 |
> installed...if it lived in its own prefix, that wouldn't be an issue, as |
15 |
> all package dependencies would be handled and installed by portage, |
16 |
> avoiding linking against OS X system libs as much as possible. This |
17 |
> would make it possible for instance to have /gentoo on say an external |
18 |
> drive that could be mounted and used on virtually any Mac OSX system, |
19 |
> regardless of system updates, etc. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> That being said, I feel like the name for such a tool shouldn't be |
22 |
> called 'Gentoo for OS X', as thats a very misleading name which seems to |
23 |
> cause a lot of confusion amongst users and developers alike. A much more |
24 |
> apt title IMHO would be 'Portage for Mac OS X', and leave the title |
25 |
> 'Gentoo for Mac OS X' for the profiles that actually manage system files. |
26 |
|
27 |
Amen! Couldn't agree more. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Fabian Groffen |
31 |
eBuild && Porting |
32 |
Gentoo for Mac OS X |
33 |
-- |
34 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |