Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > That said, they're definitely using the MacPorts decision to "go heavy" (and > controlled) vs "go light" against it in a fairly major way, which relates > back to the question I just asked: Time for a re-think, or perhaps even just > the creation of some sort of modality such that those who wish to live on the > risky edge can set a switch (and advance apologies if that switch already > exists and I simply haven't noticed it yet) and those who don't, or who need > to support multiple versions of the OS from a single tree (NFS-mounted > /opt/local anyone?), can set the switch to the other position.
One could do a new ports tree, like originally suggested. That would again reuse everything from /usr and /usr/X11 ? Then it would be a more "fair" comparison, and more about Tcl vs Ruby, Svn vs Git, and other port vs brew differences. But I think Ryan said that such a switch, + systemlibs or whatever (similar to +system_x11) is not desired for trunk. And both have the same old tarballs for "packages", whether they are called archives or bottles. No binary distribution. --anders PS. See also https://github.com/adamv/homebrew-alt Apparently there's still a need for "dupes"... _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
