Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: "P. A. A." <adijedi@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: also ddd Re: [gentoo-osx] Current status
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:14:10
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] Current status by Finn Thain
also, I should not that using the keywords "ppc-macos ~ppc-macos ppc" , 
the wonderful tool 'ddd' installed flawlessly :)


On Jul 31, 2005, at 2:29 AM, Finn Thain wrote:

> > > On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Kito wrote: > >> >> On Jul 30, 2005, at 8:12 PM, Hasan Khalil wrote: >> >>> As of yet, portage is not suited for what we have now termed >>> 'pathspec', or >>> 'installing to an alternate prefix', or 'using portage as a >>> secondary package >>> manager', etc. Changes are being made to portage that will allow for >>> features >>> like this, and should be included in the next major release (some >>> months away >>> still). >>> >> > [snip] > >> The main problem as I see it, is you have a live tree of some >> ~10,000 linux based packages, with a userbase of >100,000 LINUX >> users, a >> dev team of >350 linux on earth do you convince these >> linux users and devs that a massively huge project like supporting >> arbitrary install prefixes is worth the trouble, especially when it >> would mostly benefit a sideproject with 3 devs and probably only >> slighty >> more users? > > Remember that for some of us, it doesn't matter if no more than a tiny > fraction of ebuilds work. One should not confuse Gentoo (i.e. the > portage > tree) with Portage itself. Non-Gentoo developers, distros and O/S's can > benefit from a portable portage, even if it comes with an empty portage > tree. By "portable portage", I mean that it would support new ebuilds > that > will play nicely on arbitrary host. > > But the question remains, how to bring the existing ebuilds along for > the > ride? Kito is right that most linux devs aren't going to care too much. > Most of them are not in a position to test their ebuilds on half a > dozen > different platforms. But then, they don't all test on half a dozen > different linux architectures anyway. > > Hasan, you mentioned pathspec and prefixed installs, and future portage > features to accomodate these. Is there more information available > anywhere > on the portage roadmap and the particular future portage features you > are > referring to? > > -f > -- > gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list >
-- gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: also ddd Re: [gentoo-osx] Current status "P. A. A." <adijedi@×××××.com>