Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Kito <kito@g.o>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:47:21
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos by Finn Thain
On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:09 PM, Finn Thain wrote:

> > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote: > >>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote: >>> >>> >>> What I'm saying is that you cannot build Mac OS X, Apple will not >>> permit that. If you wan't to install X Code, you have to script >>> apple's >>> installer to do it. That is 2nd fiddle. >> >> Erm, no. It installs by extracting the files from the installation >> media >> similar to how other closed source software is installed via portage, >> doom, UTK2004, vmware, etc. Maybe we have different ideas of what >> 'second-fiddle' means. I interpret that as portage existing on a >> system >> with a specified set of fake deps in package.provided. IMHO >> portage is >> not second fiddle when it manages all files on the system. > > Porage still has to answer to the macos installer, for two reasons: > > - the macos installer will run around changing stuff without asking or > telling portage (unless you can build a system without that > installer).
You can install macos without using installer(8). It is also possible to manipulate installer(8) to install pkgs to non-boot volumes.
> > - most users don't want an OS X system without that installer (and > software update).
Most users don't what anything beyond what a default OS X install gives them either...most users don't want portage either... there is no debate on whether this is a small niche or not.
> I'm not saying portage can't do it all (down to > lipo-suctioning, creating Receipts files and all), I'm just > saying that > portage doesn't need to. I'd also say that Gentoo devs have better > things to do than maintain tools to track a proprietary packaging > system.
Packages that portage handles don't need /Library/Receipts entries, portage has its own db of package info. I'm definitely not implying portage should/will be an installer(8) replacement. Its merely a method of splitting up some of the system files into smaller subsets than what Apple has provided in their install pkgs.
> > IOW, I think it would be a mistake to try to upstage the soloist. > >>>> Even once prefixed installs are available I intend to continue >>>> development in this area to facilitate extremely minimal OS X >>>> installs for specialized applications. >>> >>> I applaud this. But I think calling that profile "macos" is a >>> misnomer. >> >> Where do you draw the line? If during a macos install I choose not to >> install all options available is it no longer macos proper? Macos >> to me >> implies CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua. Tons of other closed-source >> frameworks make up MacOS as well of course, but if you add >> CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua to a Darwin system, its macos IMHO. > > I didn't realise that you were unpacking the .pkgs without using > /usr/sbin/installer. I can see why you would call such a profile > macos. > > However, if I wanted binary packages, I wouldn't choose Gentoo, and I > don't think it makes a lot of sense to have a profile called macos > that > doesn't build macos from source. This is, of course, impossible.
Not sure I follow the logic there... This is what I have right now, 'ROOT="/Volumes/Foobar" emerge system' compiles the opensource components of Darwin and installs the needed frameworks to give you a bootable, extremely minimal macos system with nothing more than whats required to give you a WindowServer instance, and a iApps, no finder, no dock, no extraneous services, etc. etc. Useful? Not for anyone but me at this point, but its worked very well for my purposes, which is having a dedicated DAW with a a very small footprint. Before portage, I always did this manually by fiddling with installer(8) and deleting all the extra stuff I didn't want.... I find typing one command a lot more convenient. Down the road, I believe it would also be useful for things like Kiosk installations etc., but we'll see.
> >>> That's why I suggested calling upstream darwin, "ppc-darwin". The >>> fact >>> that it isn't called macos doesn't imply macos and macos packages >>> cannot be supported on it. >> >> The default-darwin profile is just that, though not currently a valid >> profile with its own keyword, but all macos profiles inherit from >> that. >> >> If you have a Darwin system with the closed source macos libs >> installed, >> its no longer Darwin as it tends to all come back to the difference >> between CoreFoundation(macos) and CF-Lite(Darwin/OpenDarwin). I >> think I >> see what you are saying, I just don't agree :p Anyway you look at >> it its >> all rather semantical, but needs to be addressed nonetheless. > > Yep. > > Following your semantics, could "progressive" (ppc-macos) be > likened to > "2nd fiddle" (ppc-darwin), but without the prefix? > > -f > >> Of course, when apple finally gets fed up with the warez kiddies >> running >> OS X on greybox crap and stops doing source releases, this will all >> become irrelevant anyway :p > -- > gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list >
-- gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos Finn Thain <fthain@××××××××××××××××.au>