| 1 |
Kito wrote: |
| 2 |
> Yeah, again I'm not saying overwriting files is the way to go. I'm not |
| 3 |
> sure how much more clear I can be on that. I'm saying installing things |
| 4 |
> to / and trying to avoid overwriting files is not a good idea. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> So, again, just to make sure I'm being understood, installing to an |
| 7 |
> alternate prefix, i.e. /gentoo, /usr/local, /opt, whatever, is the way |
| 8 |
> to go and make portage a viable tool for OS X users. As Finn pointed out |
| 9 |
> in earlier mails, not using a prefix like Fink and DarwinPorts was never |
| 10 |
> a strategic decision, but a practical one. Its all that portage knew how |
| 11 |
> to do. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Now, as far as portage having knowledge about what software is |
| 14 |
> installed...if it lived in its own prefix, that wouldn't be an issue, as |
| 15 |
> all package dependencies would be handled and installed by portage, |
| 16 |
> avoiding linking against OS X system libs as much as possible. This |
| 17 |
> would make it possible for instance to have /gentoo on say an external |
| 18 |
> drive that could be mounted and used on virtually any Mac OSX system, |
| 19 |
> regardless of system updates, etc. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> That being said, I feel like the name for such a tool shouldn't be |
| 22 |
> called 'Gentoo for OS X', as thats a very misleading name which seems to |
| 23 |
> cause a lot of confusion amongst users and developers alike. A much more |
| 24 |
> apt title IMHO would be 'Portage for Mac OS X', and leave the title |
| 25 |
> 'Gentoo for Mac OS X' for the profiles that actually manage system files. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Amen! Couldn't agree more. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 31 |
eBuild && Porting |
| 32 |
Gentoo for Mac OS X |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
Archives