> 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.
eBuild && Porting
Gentoo for Mac OS X
email@example.com mailing list