1 |
On Jul 30, 2005, at 8:12 PM, Hasan Khalil wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> |
4 |
> On Jul 30, 2005, at 19:21, Philipp Riegger wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> |
7 |
>> My problem always was, i felt a bit uncomfortable with gentoo |
8 |
>> changing my OS X files. |
9 |
>> |
10 |
> |
11 |
> |
12 |
>> so i like the fink solution, to have an extra directory, which i |
13 |
>> can simply remove if i don't like it anymore or that i can simply |
14 |
>> change my PATH to have an origial OS X environment. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> Some time ago there was a discussion about those things, which way |
17 |
>> gentoo-osx should go, what to do and so. What about this |
18 |
>> discussion? Is the extra directory for gentoo-osx definetly dead |
19 |
>> and will not be used? Or are the changes to portage that would be |
20 |
>> neccessary to difficult? |
21 |
>> |
22 |
> |
23 |
> There really wasn't ever any discussion at length as to whether or |
24 |
> not we would support installing to a separate 'jail', as far as I |
25 |
> recall -- the decision was always that we would eventually support |
26 |
> such functionality. The main ongoing discussion is simply on [the |
27 |
> difficulties of] implementation. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Currently, we support two modes of operation: the default |
30 |
> 'collision-protect' profile (a strict don't-touch-apple-provided- |
31 |
> files policy), |
32 |
|
33 |
Just to be a semantic pain in the ass, / is an apple provided file... |
34 |
If you are worried about keeping a pristine OS X environment (read: |
35 |
still qualify as a 'supported configuration' for tech support, etc.) |
36 |
then installing portage on OS X in any of its current forms is not |
37 |
what you should be playing with. Portage installs files in /usr, / |
38 |
etc, /System and whereever else ebuild maintainers feel like putting |
39 |
stuff, , basically everywhere a 3rd party software vendor should |
40 |
never touch. A simple software update could kill your portage |
41 |
packages/config files... |
42 |
|
43 |
> and the 'progressive' profile (a free-for-all overwrite-whatever- |
44 |
> you-want policy). |
45 |
|
46 |
the progressive profile is anything but a 'free-for-all'. Its primary |
47 |
purpose is setting up the environment required to build the Darwin |
48 |
OS. Nothing that gets installed in a default configuration will break |
49 |
OS X. I use what are arguably the most demanding apps available for |
50 |
OS X(shake, Logic Pro, Final Cut Pro, etc.), and have been for almost |
51 |
a year now without any ill side effects from using the progressive |
52 |
profile. |
53 |
|
54 |
> In the future we will support installing everything to some |
55 |
> location, for example '/opt/gentoo', to provide the best of both |
56 |
> worlds. In the meanwhile, the default (collision-protect) profile |
57 |
> sounds like what you're after; Apple-provided files are not allowed |
58 |
> to be overwritten when this profile is in use (there is a bug open |
59 |
> on symlinks being overwritten, but that is being taken care of and |
60 |
> is a fairly isolated situation). |
61 |
|
62 |
I think Fink and/or DarwinPorts are more what hes after ;) |
63 |
|
64 |
> |
65 |
> As of yet, portage is not suited for what we have now termed |
66 |
> 'pathspec', or 'installing to an alternate prefix', or 'using |
67 |
> portage as a secondary package manager', etc. Changes are being |
68 |
> made to portage that will allow for features like this, and should |
69 |
> be included in the next major release (some months away still). |
70 |
> |
71 |
|
72 |
I think above and beyond the technical issues, are the practical |
73 |
issues. Gentoo is a linux based distro, sure it has some wacky |
74 |
redheaded stepchildren like bsd and macos, but cmon....noone uses |
75 |
those. The main problem as I see it, is you have a live tree of some |
76 |
~10,000 linux based packages, with a userbase of >100,000 LINUX |
77 |
users, a dev team of >350 linux developers...how on earth do you |
78 |
convince these linux users and devs that a massively huge project |
79 |
like supporting arbitrary install prefixes is worth the trouble, |
80 |
especially when it would mostly benefit a sideproject with 3 devs and |
81 |
probably only slighty more users? |
82 |
|
83 |
> The portage team has generally been very happy to receive help, if |
84 |
> you're interested. |
85 |
|
86 |
Indeed...just be clear though, portage supporting this is merely the |
87 |
first step...it'll take quite along time to get packages in the tree |
88 |
that also support this. |
89 |
|
90 |
--Kito |
91 |
|
92 |
> |
93 |
> I hope this clarifies things for you, and everyone else on this list. |
94 |
> |
95 |
> -- |
96 |
> |
97 |
> Hasan Khalil |
98 |
> eBuild and Porting Co-Lead |
99 |
> Gentoo for Mac OS X |
100 |
> |
101 |
> |
102 |
|
103 |
-- |
104 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |