On 2010-9-23 06:59 , Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > The activate step was a wrinkle I kind of deliberately glossed over. :-) > We'd have to decide, in a package producing world, just what to do > about the different installation types, direct and image, and perhaps > make some hard decisions about perhaps just supporting one of them. I > can certainly see packages being somewhat polymorphic in how they deal > with direct/image, doing different things at install time (I even have a > pretty fair idea as to how to do it), but it still begs the question as > to whether the additional complexity would really be worth it or if we > couldn't just say "to hell with it, packages are always direct mode > installs!". Food for thought.
We (or at least blb and I) were working towards something like this: <http://trac.macports.org/ticket/19458> <http://trac.macports.org/browser/branches/images-and-archives> Unfortunately I think integration of registry2.0 created a painful merge situation, so it's been stalled. The existing implementation uses .tbz2 archives, but it's equally applicable whether we end up using enhanced-archives or some fancier package format. > I think MacPorts "cares" for some value of care, it's just waiting for > someone else to do the work. I'm even volunteering, since I'm tired of > always just ranting about it and then wandering off again. ;-) Substantial contributions to base in general have been really sparse lately. So, thanks for volunteering! Please submit lots of patches! :-) - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
