| 1 |
> So it really does come down to portage after all. Portage has a hard |
| 2 |
> dependency on bash. portage is intimately wrapped up in the linux way of doing |
| 3 |
> things. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Right, we have to say Bash. To be exact Bash is GNU not Linux. I |
| 7 |
genarally say Linux not Gnu-Linux. However in this case the difference |
| 8 |
matters. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/ |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I run portage more or less sucessfully on Cygwins POSIX layer. Other |
| 13 |
people run it on Interix or Solaris. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> As evidence: the only non-linux port that went anywhere was on FreeBSD, now |
| 16 |
> moribund for years. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
True. But FreeBSD isn't that popular like Windows, Mac or Linux. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I think there is a future for second level managers that can be |
| 21 |
installed into multiple OS and yet set up the very same POSIX |
| 22 |
invironement. Having that you can build complex software that is |
| 23 |
portable. You don't depend on Java. You don't need to run a virtual |
| 24 |
server. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Currently there are two canditates. One candidate is Cygwin Ports, the |
| 27 |
other one is Gentoo Prefix. Cygwin Ports just added cross-compilation |
| 28 |
features into the latest edition. Still Cygwin is limited to Windows. |
| 29 |
By this Cygwin Ports has done the first steps to become portable to |
| 30 |
Linux and Mac in future and it is already very mature on Windows. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Gentoo Prefix is already able to run on Windows-Interix, Linux and Mac |
| 33 |
as second level manager, but it isn't that mature. Still it is not |
| 34 |
discovered by a bigger community. The potential is already there. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
So you finally can't say FreeBSD was the only port of Portage. But |
| 37 |
there is none that went to a major public. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Al |
Archives