Kito wrote:
Yeah, again I'm not saying overwriting files is the way to go. I'm not
sure how much more clear I can be on that. I'm saying installing things
to / and trying to avoid overwriting files is not a good idea.
So, again, just to make sure I'm being understood, installing to an
alternate prefix, i.e. /gentoo, /usr/local, /opt, whatever, is the way
to go and make portage a viable tool for OS X users. As Finn pointed out
in earlier mails, not using a prefix like Fink and DarwinPorts was never
a strategic decision, but a practical one. Its all that portage knew how
to do.
Now, as far as portage having knowledge about what software is
installed...if it lived in its own prefix, that wouldn't be an issue, as
all package dependencies would be handled and installed by portage,
avoiding linking against OS X system libs as much as possible. This
would make it possible for instance to have /gentoo on say an external
drive that could be mounted and used on virtually any Mac OSX system,
regardless of system updates, etc.
That being said, I feel like the name for such a tool shouldn't be
called 'Gentoo for OS X', as thats a very misleading name which seems to
cause a lot of confusion amongst users and developers alike. A much more
apt title IMHO would be 'Portage for Mac OS X', and leave the title
'Gentoo for Mac OS X' for the profiles that actually manage system files.
Amen! Couldn't agree more.
--
Fabian Groffen
eBuild && Porting
Gentoo for Mac OS X
--
[email protected] mailing list
