1 |
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> >On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> >What I'm saying is that you cannot build Mac OS X, Apple will not |
7 |
> >permit that. If you wan't to install X Code, you have to script apple's |
8 |
> >installer to do it. That is 2nd fiddle. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Erm, no. It installs by extracting the files from the installation media |
11 |
> similar to how other closed source software is installed via portage, |
12 |
> doom, UTK2004, vmware, etc. Maybe we have different ideas of what |
13 |
> 'second-fiddle' means. I interpret that as portage existing on a system |
14 |
> with a specified set of fake deps in package.provided. IMHO portage is |
15 |
> not second fiddle when it manages all files on the system. |
16 |
|
17 |
Porage still has to answer to the macos installer, for two reasons: |
18 |
|
19 |
- the macos installer will run around changing stuff without asking or |
20 |
telling portage (unless you can build a system without that installer). |
21 |
|
22 |
- most users don't want an OS X system without that installer (and |
23 |
software update). I'm not saying portage can't do it all (down to |
24 |
lipo-suctioning, creating Receipts files and all), I'm just saying that |
25 |
portage doesn't need to. I'd also say that Gentoo devs have better |
26 |
things to do than maintain tools to track a proprietary packaging |
27 |
system. |
28 |
|
29 |
IOW, I think it would be a mistake to try to upstage the soloist. |
30 |
|
31 |
> > >Even once prefixed installs are available I intend to continue |
32 |
> > >development in this area to facilitate extremely minimal OS X |
33 |
> > >installs for specialized applications. |
34 |
> > |
35 |
> >I applaud this. But I think calling that profile "macos" is a misnomer. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> Where do you draw the line? If during a macos install I choose not to |
38 |
> install all options available is it no longer macos proper? Macos to me |
39 |
> implies CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua. Tons of other closed-source |
40 |
> frameworks make up MacOS as well of course, but if you add |
41 |
> CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua to a Darwin system, its macos IMHO. |
42 |
|
43 |
I didn't realise that you were unpacking the .pkgs without using |
44 |
/usr/sbin/installer. I can see why you would call such a profile macos. |
45 |
|
46 |
However, if I wanted binary packages, I wouldn't choose Gentoo, and I |
47 |
don't think it makes a lot of sense to have a profile called macos that |
48 |
doesn't build macos from source. This is, of course, impossible. |
49 |
|
50 |
> >That's why I suggested calling upstream darwin, "ppc-darwin". The fact |
51 |
> >that it isn't called macos doesn't imply macos and macos packages |
52 |
> >cannot be supported on it. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> The default-darwin profile is just that, though not currently a valid |
55 |
> profile with its own keyword, but all macos profiles inherit from that. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> If you have a Darwin system with the closed source macos libs installed, |
58 |
> its no longer Darwin as it tends to all come back to the difference |
59 |
> between CoreFoundation(macos) and CF-Lite(Darwin/OpenDarwin). I think I |
60 |
> see what you are saying, I just don't agree :p Anyway you look at it its |
61 |
> all rather semantical, but needs to be addressed nonetheless. |
62 |
|
63 |
Yep. |
64 |
|
65 |
Following your semantics, could "progressive" (ppc-macos) be likened to |
66 |
"2nd fiddle" (ppc-darwin), but without the prefix? |
67 |
|
68 |
-f |
69 |
|
70 |
> Of course, when apple finally gets fed up with the warez kiddies running |
71 |
> OS X on greybox crap and stops doing source releases, this will all |
72 |
> become irrelevant anyway :p |
73 |
-- |
74 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |