1 |
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Stroller wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> |
4 |
> Sorry to come to this so late - I'm just back from holiday. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> On Aug 8, 2005, at 6:38 am, Kito wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > Maybe you misunderstood, what I think is futile is trying to avoid |
9 |
> > overwriting files, and accommodating things portage has no knowledge of or |
10 |
> > control over. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Unless you avoid over-writing Mac OS's system files Gentoo-OSX will |
13 |
> never become mainstream. |
14 |
|
15 |
You should take the context into consideration when trying to understand |
16 |
Kito's comment, which was in reply to my post about Gentoo/Darwin. In that |
17 |
light, he is absolutely right, collision-protect is counter-productive. |
18 |
|
19 |
In the context of Gentoo/OS X, I think everyone agrees that prefixed |
20 |
installs would be preferable to collision-protect. |
21 |
|
22 |
If you install Gentoo/OS X, you will find collision-protect is used by the |
23 |
default profile. You concerns seem to be aimed at the progressive profile |
24 |
that some users prefer. It is your choice. |
25 |
|
26 |
-f |
27 |
-- |
28 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |