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 apple's 
> >installer to do it. That is 2nd fiddle.
> 
> Erm, no. It installs by extracting the files from the installation media 
> 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 system 
> 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 installer).

- most users don't want an OS X system without that installer (and 
  software update). 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 
  system.

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 misnomer.
> 
> 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 macos.

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 that 
doesn't build macos from source.  This is, of course, impossible.

> >That's why I suggested calling upstream darwin, "ppc-darwin". The fact 
> >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 that.
>
> If you have a Darwin system with the closed source macos libs installed, 
> 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.

Yep.

Following your semantics, could "progressive" (ppc-macos) be likened to 
"2nd fiddle" (ppc-darwin), but without the prefix?

-f

> Of course, when apple finally gets fed up with the warez kiddies running 
> OS X on greybox crap and stops doing source releases, this will all 
> become irrelevant anyway :p
-- 
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list