1 |
On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:09 PM, Finn Thain wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote: |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> What I'm saying is that you cannot build Mac OS X, Apple will not |
11 |
>>> permit that. If you wan't to install X Code, you have to script |
12 |
>>> apple's |
13 |
>>> installer to do it. That is 2nd fiddle. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> Erm, no. It installs by extracting the files from the installation |
16 |
>> media |
17 |
>> similar to how other closed source software is installed via portage, |
18 |
>> doom, UTK2004, vmware, etc. Maybe we have different ideas of what |
19 |
>> 'second-fiddle' means. I interpret that as portage existing on a |
20 |
>> system |
21 |
>> with a specified set of fake deps in package.provided. IMHO |
22 |
>> portage is |
23 |
>> not second fiddle when it manages all files on the system. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Porage still has to answer to the macos installer, for two reasons: |
26 |
> |
27 |
> - the macos installer will run around changing stuff without asking or |
28 |
> telling portage (unless you can build a system without that |
29 |
> installer). |
30 |
|
31 |
You can install macos without using installer(8). It is also possible |
32 |
to manipulate installer(8) to install pkgs to non-boot volumes. |
33 |
|
34 |
> |
35 |
> - most users don't want an OS X system without that installer (and |
36 |
> software update). |
37 |
|
38 |
Most users don't what anything beyond what a default OS X install |
39 |
gives them either...most users don't want portage either... there is |
40 |
no debate on whether this is a small niche or not. |
41 |
|
42 |
> I'm not saying portage can't do it all (down to |
43 |
> lipo-suctioning, creating Receipts files and all), I'm just |
44 |
> saying that |
45 |
> portage doesn't need to. I'd also say that Gentoo devs have better |
46 |
> things to do than maintain tools to track a proprietary packaging |
47 |
> system. |
48 |
|
49 |
Packages that portage handles don't need /Library/Receipts entries, |
50 |
portage has its own db of package info. I'm definitely not implying |
51 |
portage should/will be an installer(8) replacement. Its merely a |
52 |
method of splitting up some of the system files into smaller subsets |
53 |
than what Apple has provided in their install pkgs. |
54 |
|
55 |
> |
56 |
> IOW, I think it would be a mistake to try to upstage the soloist. |
57 |
> |
58 |
>>>> Even once prefixed installs are available I intend to continue |
59 |
>>>> development in this area to facilitate extremely minimal OS X |
60 |
>>>> installs for specialized applications. |
61 |
>>> |
62 |
>>> I applaud this. But I think calling that profile "macos" is a |
63 |
>>> misnomer. |
64 |
>> |
65 |
>> Where do you draw the line? If during a macos install I choose not to |
66 |
>> install all options available is it no longer macos proper? Macos |
67 |
>> to me |
68 |
>> implies CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua. Tons of other closed-source |
69 |
>> frameworks make up MacOS as well of course, but if you add |
70 |
>> CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua to a Darwin system, its macos IMHO. |
71 |
> |
72 |
> I didn't realise that you were unpacking the .pkgs without using |
73 |
> /usr/sbin/installer. I can see why you would call such a profile |
74 |
> macos. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> However, if I wanted binary packages, I wouldn't choose Gentoo, and I |
77 |
> don't think it makes a lot of sense to have a profile called macos |
78 |
> that |
79 |
> doesn't build macos from source. This is, of course, impossible. |
80 |
|
81 |
Not sure I follow the logic there... This is what I have right now, |
82 |
'ROOT="/Volumes/Foobar" emerge system' compiles the opensource |
83 |
components of Darwin and installs the needed frameworks to give you a |
84 |
bootable, extremely minimal macos system with nothing more than whats |
85 |
required to give you a WindowServer instance, and a loginwindow...no |
86 |
iApps, no finder, no dock, no extraneous services, etc. etc. |
87 |
|
88 |
Useful? Not for anyone but me at this point, but its worked very well |
89 |
for my purposes, which is having a dedicated DAW with a a very small |
90 |
footprint. Before portage, I always did this manually by fiddling |
91 |
with installer(8) and deleting all the extra stuff I didn't want.... |
92 |
I find typing one command a lot more convenient. Down the road, I |
93 |
believe it would also be useful for things like Kiosk installations |
94 |
etc., but we'll see. |
95 |
|
96 |
> |
97 |
>>> That's why I suggested calling upstream darwin, "ppc-darwin". The |
98 |
>>> fact |
99 |
>>> that it isn't called macos doesn't imply macos and macos packages |
100 |
>>> cannot be supported on it. |
101 |
>> |
102 |
>> The default-darwin profile is just that, though not currently a valid |
103 |
>> profile with its own keyword, but all macos profiles inherit from |
104 |
>> that. |
105 |
>> |
106 |
>> If you have a Darwin system with the closed source macos libs |
107 |
>> installed, |
108 |
>> its no longer Darwin as it tends to all come back to the difference |
109 |
>> between CoreFoundation(macos) and CF-Lite(Darwin/OpenDarwin). I |
110 |
>> think I |
111 |
>> see what you are saying, I just don't agree :p Anyway you look at |
112 |
>> it its |
113 |
>> all rather semantical, but needs to be addressed nonetheless. |
114 |
> |
115 |
> Yep. |
116 |
> |
117 |
> Following your semantics, could "progressive" (ppc-macos) be |
118 |
> likened to |
119 |
> "2nd fiddle" (ppc-darwin), but without the prefix? |
120 |
> |
121 |
> -f |
122 |
> |
123 |
>> Of course, when apple finally gets fed up with the warez kiddies |
124 |
>> running |
125 |
>> OS X on greybox crap and stops doing source releases, this will all |
126 |
>> become irrelevant anyway :p |
127 |
> -- |
128 |
> gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
129 |
> |
130 |
|
131 |
-- |
132 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |