On Mar 14, 2015, at 12:18 PM, Rainer Müller <rai...@macports.org> wrote:
> On 2015-03-14 14:44, Clemens Lang wrote: >> ----- On 14 Mar, 2015, at 02:04, Bradley Giesbrecht pixi...@macports.org >> wrote: >> >>> Has there been a discussion about having the MacPorts buildbots also build >>> mdmg >>> files? >>> >>> This may require a lot of resources so perhaps mdmg could be run for some >>> percentage of requested ports using mpstats? > > Not all ports will work when installed as mdmg. The main problem would > be that post-activate scripts are not converted to postflight scripts. > > There once was a dp_lite (DarwinPorts Lite) to extract a minimal runtime > to be included in standalone installers. > > As we now ship Tcl with base, we probably even had to include a Tcl > interpreter. Our code base is also not organized to isolate a few > commands. As post-activate scripts might run any command, I guess we > would end up with almost everything anyway... > >> What would be your use case for that? If you are looking for packages you can >> install without installing MacPorts, I'd argue it's a bad idea to have our >> buildbots generate those, because of the prefix conflict. > > Even when using a different prefix (ignoring all user confusion), this > would give the wrong impression of being an officially supported method > of installation. Users do not get any upgrade path with mdmg packages. The users I am attempting to serve currently get nothing because installing Xcode, CLT, MacPorts and then installing deps with non-default variants before building the target (octave in this case) is beyond their capabilities or patience. Regards, Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
