Growl is a potential dependency[1] of other ports in the ports tree.
The mere fact that it has an auto-update feature is not reason to
remove it from the ports tree.
Another comment, that we should remove it since the developers do not
seem to support building it yourself, is slightly incorrect: because
Growl uses AppleScript, it does not like building from the command
line. This is (obviously) a problem for us, but I think it is more of
an Apple problem than a Growl problem.
Also, since we are wishing to eventually be able to distribute
binaries instead of requiring that users install Xcode, repackaging
binaries should not be a problem for us, particularly if we are able
to get our act together and not let ports get too stale.
[1] potential dependency = we would be depending on it if it could
build reliably from the command line
On 15 Apr 2007, at 05:47, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Apr 15, 2007, at 03:43, Elias Pipping wrote:
On Apr 15, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Jochen Küpper wrote:
On 15.04.2007, at 02:26, Patrick Burleson wrote:
[..]
Moreover I automatically get new versions when I do
sudo port upgrade active
because some of the nice guys at MacPorts updates
the package once in a while;)
iTerm's 'port' is currently at 0.8.2 although 0.9.5 is out.
Furthermore I believe iTerm has a builtin auto-update feature
which obsoletes upgrading through MacPorts (or even interferes
with it)
Right. That's a reason why the CyberDuck port was removed, for
example. And it's a reason why Growl should be removed, since it
also has an auto-update feature.
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
Randall Wood
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The rules are simple: The ball is round. The game lasts 90 minutes.
All the
rest is just philosophy."
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
