| 1 |
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Grobian wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 12:54:53AM -0500, Kito wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > basically the proving ground for the portage base-system packages. |
| 6 |
> > Its also whats used for Darwin development, as building Darwin system |
| 7 |
> > packages requires a heavily modified OS X environment. I don't plan on |
| 8 |
> > deprecating it at all, if you feel strongly otherwise, maybe you |
| 9 |
> > should split the profiles up (again) and let the collision-protect |
| 10 |
> > profiles that install packages to / (non-prefixed) live in profiles/ |
| 11 |
> > default-macos and leave profiles/default-darwin for, well, darwin. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I would think that the current default-macos profiles should get |
| 14 |
> deprecated somehow in their current form and replaced by a prefix |
| 15 |
> thing... |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> For me, non-collision-protect stuff is dangerous/progressive. By using |
| 18 |
> a prefix, a lot of (if not all of) the collision-protect issues should |
| 19 |
> go away (like with fink for example), hence if you then still want |
| 20 |
> something progressive, it will mean something else to me like it means |
| 21 |
> to me now. It will be a misunderstanding from my side, but a separation |
| 22 |
> of alt/darwin and alt/macos might be approriate at that stage, since |
| 23 |
> progressive/darwin then clearly has not the sole purpose to extend and |
| 24 |
> enrich an Apple OSX install. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
A progressive system should be able to use ppc-macos ebuilds. But, if the |
| 27 |
ppc-macos people only want to support a pure Apple root domain (the one |
| 28 |
with prefix /), then progressive work cannot come under alt/macos, and has |
| 29 |
to be a seperate alt/darwin project with its own "ppc-darwin" keyword. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
But, before alt/macos abandons support for an alt/darwin root prefix, it |
| 32 |
is worth noting that package.provided works best if you are only injecting |
| 33 |
darwin packages. That argument will hopefully become less relevant once |
| 34 |
you can dep on vendor packages. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> Sounds more like progressive wants to build a Darwin system (perhaps |
| 37 |
> even kernel) with portage as package manager. This is completely cool, |
| 38 |
> but not my cup of tea, and a whole new definition of progressive to me. |
| 39 |
> So maybe we should start a new thread on what progressive actually |
| 40 |
> means/is? :) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
IMHO trying to define progressive or conservative would be futile until we |
| 43 |
get to play with the portage rewrite (domains and prefixes). |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-f |
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
Archives