1 |
> > |
2 |
> > Well, if this is "round two" (which seems kind of weird since it's |
3 |
> > backported from v2.1 to 2.0...). |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Well. the 2.1 branch has been officially killed, which is the version |
6 |
> Haubi did his original work on, so Brian back ported it just so we |
7 |
> could start testing out the ebuilds in an overlay and have a working |
8 |
> prototype. |
9 |
|
10 |
Well, I'm interested in testing the 2.0 version if possible. 3.0 |
11 |
timeframe is start of next year? |
12 |
|
13 |
> |
14 |
> > I'm interested in tracking the |
15 |
> > "official" version as closely as possible. Maybe I should test this |
16 |
> > version out on FC4. What will "round three", etc, look like (are |
17 |
> > there missing features, is it just testing, getting ebuilds converted, |
18 |
> > evangelism)? |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > Kito- Could you please elaborate on the bootstrap process? |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Well, I started by building a toolchain manually in the prefix |
23 |
> (gcc,cctools[apples linker/assembler], coreutils, make, python, bash |
24 |
> and some others I'm forgetting), then configured and installed |
25 |
> portage. Once portage was up and running I just started importing the |
26 |
> base-system ebuilds to the overlay and merging as I went along. On a |
27 |
> FC4 system, you could probably just use some symlinks instead of |
28 |
> manually building a toolchain for bootstrap. |
29 |
> |
30 |
|
31 |
Yeah on linux you could get by pretty easily. But if you want to |
32 |
allow end users to add new archs (could be distro, or posix operating |
33 |
system) wouldn't it be easier to have something like haubi's |
34 |
bootstrapper? |
35 |
|
36 |
> I've finished the base-system ebuilds for a Darwin/OS X prefix, but |
37 |
> for linux you will still need a few extra that I haven't done yet, |
38 |
> like binutils, libtool, and gcc[1]. I'm going back and doing some |
39 |
> cleanup and additional testing, should have it checked into svn later |
40 |
> this week. Definitely want to get this working on as many archs as |
41 |
> possible, so any help is welcome. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> > Perhaps |
44 |
> > we could put it in the wiki? |
45 |
> |
46 |
> I was going to create a project page in xml under the gentoo-alt |
47 |
> page, but a wiki might be a better idea, especially if a few other |
48 |
> non-gentoo devs want to start helping out with the linux/aix/solaris |
49 |
> stuff. |
50 |
> |
51 |
|
52 |
Making the information public is better than no information. It seems |
53 |
like it is better suited to be in the wiki right now, since end users |
54 |
(non-gento devs) could add/edit/fix things in it. |
55 |
|
56 |
> > Regarding changes to ebuilds, yes I |
57 |
> > agree small (or no) changes is preferred. |
58 |
> |
59 |
> Yeah, by far the biggest change needed right now is `make DESTDIR=$ |
60 |
> {DEST} install`. I've made functions to address the ebuilds that |
61 |
> don't use econf, so the changes are very very slight, and with some |
62 |
> more work could probably even be lessened further. |
63 |
> |
64 |
|
65 |
So DEST is PREFIX now? |
66 |
|
67 |
> > I went ahead and installed |
68 |
> > apache2 in my prefixed environment and it was relatively |
69 |
> > straightforward. |
70 |
> |
71 |
> Yeah, I'm having great luck so far, running gtk+, jack, and ardour |
72 |
> out of the prefix with no problems and very minor ebuild changes. |
73 |
> |
74 |
|
75 |
That is awesome. |
76 |
> > |
77 |
> > Brian- Do you have any idea of the roadmap for prefix getting into |
78 |
> > portage? Would it possibly get into 2.0? 2.1? Rewrite? What will |
79 |
> > determine this? |
80 |
> |
81 |
> I'll let Brian answer this, but I'm fairly certain there is no chance |
82 |
> of this making it into the 2.0 series, 2.1 is dead, so 3.0 will have |
83 |
> to be our saviour (boooo! hsssss! bad pun) |
84 |
|
85 |
Looking forward to 3.0 then.... |
86 |
|
87 |
-- |
88 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |