1 |
On 9/8/05, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> To re-direct you one more time, maybe have a look over at the |
4 |
> gentoo-portage-dev list. That's where portage development happens. We |
5 |
> just use it. :) |
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
Nick- |
10 |
|
11 |
Thanks for the redirection. I'll spam them as well. |
12 |
|
13 |
We are in the process of making gentoo's portage work on osx as a |
14 |
> secondary package manager (as you put it earlier). We ideally use / as |
15 |
> the root. Much of what we've push into portage mainline (as bug |
16 |
> reports) has to do with using POSIX versions of tools rather than the |
17 |
> gnu versions. This has to do with portage code as well as ebuilds |
18 |
> themselves. the gentoo/bsd group also does this with their work. Both |
19 |
> of our projects are focused on getting portage running on non-linux |
20 |
> systems. There was talk of gentoo/open solaris as well. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> I don't think I fully understand what you're looking for, but I hope you |
23 |
> find it :) |
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
Here's what I want: If you are familiar with openpkg, I want a portage |
27 |
version of that rather than an rpm version. |
28 |
If you aren't familiar with that I want a "prefixed" version of portage |
29 |
(much like how fink is in it's own directory) that will run ontop of other |
30 |
unices (solaris, osx, linux variants). |
31 |
Here's the thread that contains a GLEP explaining "portage as a secondary |
32 |
package manager". |
33 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/27569 |
34 |
|
35 |
Hopefully that makes sense. I hope this doesn't appear to be rude, I just |
36 |
want to make sure people understand what I'm asking for, so that we are all |
37 |
on the same page ;) |
38 |
|
39 |
Cheers, |
40 |
> -Nick Dimiduk |
41 |
> |
42 |
> m h wrote: |
43 |
> > Hello- |
44 |
> > |
45 |
> > I posted in the gentoo-dev mailing list yesterday, but figured I'd post |
46 |
> > here since it is somewhat closer related. I'm investigating the |
47 |
> > differences between portage and openpkg. For those who don't know about |
48 |
> > openpkg, openpkg allows one to install rpms in a sandboxed environment |
49 |
> > accross multiple unix platforms (bsd, redhat, debian, gentoo,...). It |
50 |
> > consists of a way to bootstrap an environment and a bunch of spec files |
51 |
> > used to create rpms specifically tailored for that platform. The idea |
52 |
> > being you could run the "same" components across different platforms in |
53 |
> > your environment. |
54 |
> > |
55 |
> > It seems that Fink and Portage for OSX are providing similar |
56 |
> > functionality on top of OSX. My question is what would be involved in |
57 |
> > generalizing the Portage OSX port to unix platforms similar to what |
58 |
> > openpkg is doing. An example might be that while I need to run Suse at |
59 |
> > work, I could install portage into a sandboxed location and enter that |
60 |
> > environment. This would allow me to run newer components, better |
61 |
> > integrated, security patched, etc, while still having the corporate |
62 |
> > environment if I needed it. |
63 |
> > |
64 |
> > Ideally the benefits for doing this would be to allow many platforms to |
65 |
> > take advantage of portage, use the large ebuild tree (openpkg has ~400 |
66 |
> > components), as well as use ebuilds that are tested probably a little |
67 |
> > bit more than openpkg (I believe the gentoo install base is a least one |
68 |
> > or two orders of magnitude larger than openpkg). |
69 |
> > |
70 |
> > Any thoughts, comments, or suggestions are appreciated. |
71 |
> > |
72 |
> > thanks |
73 |
> > |
74 |
> > matt |
75 |
> |
76 |
> -- |
77 |
> gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
78 |
> |
79 |
> |