| 1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:02:26PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:04:03 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> |
| 7 |
>>wrote: |
| 8 |
>>| You know apple ain't going to support the broken mess that results, |
| 9 |
>>| and nor will we most likely. That is why we can't go replacing |
| 10 |
>>| whatever we label as broken[1] on *any* system where portage is |
| 11 |
>>| secondary. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>>Then we can't support portage as a secondary package manager. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>Well, since you say so... :P |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>One note, stating that gentoo osx no longer functions with portage as |
| 19 |
>a secondary pkg manager still doesn't do jack for addressing the 10.3 |
| 20 |
>-> 10.4 issue... so really, it still is secondary. |
| 21 |
>~brian |
| 22 |
>-- |
| 23 |
>gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
We have no control over what Apple will do for a 10.3 -> 10.4 upgrade |
| 27 |
which is why IMHO the smokes and mirrors with paths is the best option. |
| 28 |
You can't go replacing primary OSX files with GNU ones and expect |
| 29 |
everything to be fine when OSX can fex. overwrite GNU sed with it's own |
| 30 |
version upon upgrade, or security release or whatnot. Then the user is |
| 31 |
screwed. I would expect similar behavior on BSD. Portage is not the |
| 32 |
primary handler of the system and it shouldn't try to be. |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives