On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Grobian wrote:
> Though I would think that anything you install using portage would have
> a preference over the OS provided stuff, if I follow my own reasoning as
I see your point, but I still think it is a rather gray area.
> I don't agree that FEATURES="collision-protect" means "preserve
> behaviour", it means "don't screw up my system, make sure I can get back
> to normal if I want to". Maybe it's just a todo to make this viewpoint
> clear somewhere.
That's one way to look at it.
> > Thing is, those people who don't like to change the behaviour of their
> > OS X system will not put Gentoo perl early in the PATH anyway. And if
> > they need Gentoo perl as a dep, then they need a prefixed install.
> If you don't want to change the behaviour of your OSX machine, you
> shouldn't install portage, fink, or whatsoever, because by adding
> software you change it's behaviour. (It normally would say: "command
> not found")
Absolutely right. There are some commands that should not be found, and if
the are, some things do start to break (mainly ./configure). This is true
regardless of the sequence you put binaries in PATH.
In such an eventuality, the user should be able to remove the problem the
same way they installed it (emerge).
Anyway, my point is, there are ways to add new behaviour to OS X that
don't remove old behaviour. Some people may view collision-protect as one
way to achieve that.
BTW, if you have a bunch of bugzilla entries that complain "gentoo ebuilds
don't like apple's perl", that is another story (and I confess that I
haven't looked...) Things get interesting if you become obliged to have a
prefixed perl to support the rest of portage, but you also want the user
to have the freedom to choose the arrangement of their PATH.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list