On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:09 PM, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:
>>> What I'm saying is that you cannot build Mac OS X, Apple will not
>>> permit that. If you wan't to install X Code, you have to script
>>> installer to do it. That is 2nd fiddle.
>> Erm, no. It installs by extracting the files from the installation
>> similar to how other closed source software is installed via portage,
>> doom, UTK2004, vmware, etc. Maybe we have different ideas of what
>> 'second-fiddle' means. I interpret that as portage existing on a
>> with a specified set of fake deps in package.provided. IMHO
>> portage is
>> not second fiddle when it manages all files on the system.
> Porage still has to answer to the macos installer, for two reasons:
> - the macos installer will run around changing stuff without asking or
> telling portage (unless you can build a system without that
You can install macos without using installer(8). It is also possible
to manipulate installer(8) to install pkgs to non-boot volumes.
> - most users don't want an OS X system without that installer (and
> software update).
Most users don't what anything beyond what a default OS X install
gives them either...most users don't want portage either... there is
no debate on whether this is a small niche or not.
> I'm not saying portage can't do it all (down to
> lipo-suctioning, creating Receipts files and all), I'm just
> saying that
> portage doesn't need to. I'd also say that Gentoo devs have better
> things to do than maintain tools to track a proprietary packaging
Packages that portage handles don't need /Library/Receipts entries,
portage has its own db of package info. I'm definitely not implying
portage should/will be an installer(8) replacement. Its merely a
method of splitting up some of the system files into smaller subsets
than what Apple has provided in their install pkgs.
> IOW, I think it would be a mistake to try to upstage the soloist.
>>>> Even once prefixed installs are available I intend to continue
>>>> development in this area to facilitate extremely minimal OS X
>>>> installs for specialized applications.
>>> I applaud this. But I think calling that profile "macos" is a
>> Where do you draw the line? If during a macos install I choose not to
>> install all options available is it no longer macos proper? Macos
>> to me
>> implies CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua. Tons of other closed-source
>> frameworks make up MacOS as well of course, but if you add
>> CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua to a Darwin system, its macos IMHO.
> I didn't realise that you were unpacking the .pkgs without using
> /usr/sbin/installer. I can see why you would call such a profile
> However, if I wanted binary packages, I wouldn't choose Gentoo, and I
> don't think it makes a lot of sense to have a profile called macos
> doesn't build macos from source. This is, of course, impossible.
Not sure I follow the logic there... This is what I have right now,
'ROOT="/Volumes/Foobar" emerge system' compiles the opensource
components of Darwin and installs the needed frameworks to give you a
bootable, extremely minimal macos system with nothing more than whats
required to give you a WindowServer instance, and a loginwindow...no
iApps, no finder, no dock, no extraneous services, etc. etc.
Useful? Not for anyone but me at this point, but its worked very well
for my purposes, which is having a dedicated DAW with a a very small
footprint. Before portage, I always did this manually by fiddling
with installer(8) and deleting all the extra stuff I didn't want....
I find typing one command a lot more convenient. Down the road, I
believe it would also be useful for things like Kiosk installations
etc., but we'll see.
>>> That's why I suggested calling upstream darwin, "ppc-darwin". The
>>> that it isn't called macos doesn't imply macos and macos packages
>>> cannot be supported on it.
>> The default-darwin profile is just that, though not currently a valid
>> profile with its own keyword, but all macos profiles inherit from
>> If you have a Darwin system with the closed source macos libs
>> its no longer Darwin as it tends to all come back to the difference
>> between CoreFoundation(macos) and CF-Lite(Darwin/OpenDarwin). I
>> think I
>> see what you are saying, I just don't agree :p Anyway you look at
>> it its
>> all rather semantical, but needs to be addressed nonetheless.
> Following your semantics, could "progressive" (ppc-macos) be
> likened to
> "2nd fiddle" (ppc-darwin), but without the prefix?
>> Of course, when apple finally gets fed up with the warez kiddies
>> OS X on greybox crap and stops doing source releases, this will all
>> become irrelevant anyway :p
> firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
email@example.com mailing list