Anders F Björklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 at 5:41 AM -0800 wrote: >There are some common typos in it like "OS X" (Mac OS X) and "Xwindows" >(X Window System) and it should probably be less Apple/Mac OS X centric >(i.e. should mention explicitly that 2.1-2.5 applies to Mac OS X, and >say >something instead of "Apple-supplied" - like vendor-supplied, etc >etc...) > >It would also be nice if it could mention "open source and free >software", >instead of just saying "open source Unix software" and not mentioning >GNU ? >This is IMHO also another reason why it is important to get License >metadata >into the ports, as it is now you'll have to dig through >homepages/licenses. > >You can look at the old guide for some hints, it uses "third party >software" >and has much more info on the common heritage with the BSD >Ports/collections. >A "MacPorts for people used to *BSD Ports" section might even be a good >idea. >Besides regular Mac OS X, MacPorts is also usable on FreeBSD (with >GNUstep).
All good points. I haven't yet got to that level of detail yet, but I agree with you it needs to be done. I'll hang onto these suggestions and address them the best I can after getting all the raw data I can from the old guide. >I will try to be of some assistance about those, we can take either in >the regular guide xml or if you're doing some kind of parallel guide >we can discuss it here on these mailing lists or on some Wiki page... > > >As it is now we have two kinds of binaries: ARCHIVES (.tgz, .tbz, etc) >and PACKAGES (.pkg, .rpm, etc). Eventually these might both be able >to use the same XAR archive, but as of now they're still separate... > >The archives are created with "port archive" or by enabling archivemode. >They can (confusingly!) be found under /opt/local/var/macports/packages >with subdirectories for each platform (e.g. darwin) and arch (e.g. i386) > >The packages are created with something like "port pkg" or "port rpm" >and are found in either the work directory or /opt/local/src/macports. >Since .pkg is a dir bundle, it is converted to one file with "port dmg". > >The main differences is that the archives are used within the port >system, >to avoid having to rebuild a port from source, and that the packages are >used outside the port system, without even needing MacPorts installed. > > >Besides the binary packages, we also have source packages. These consist >of the Portfile and all needed files/ (patches and other supporting >files), >and they come in either ".portpkg" (XAR) or ".nosrc.rpm" (SRPM) flavors. > >Normally there is not much need to use source packages, since the binary >packages can be built directly from the ports tree (whether rsync or >svn) >but they are useful for port submissions or for storage of older >versions. > >In order to build a new binary from a source package, all the >corresponding >distfiles are also needed. Normally these are only kept around as >checksums, >but can be mirrored locally - or even included in the case of >".src.rpm". > >When building packages, all dependencies must be installed from ports or >archives - installations made from packages do not help and must be >redone. >This is because the binary packages are *not* registered within >MacPorts. > > >Hopefully that should be enough to start, and let me know if I am >mistaken... I'll have to look at your descriptions later tonight (I hope) and write something up and send it back to the list for more peer review. BTW, I don't want a parallel guide; I'd like to get the new one replaced and I'm willing to go take whatever suggestions, contributions, or changes the community thinks necessary to make a new guide official. I just think the modifying the old guide is too difficult if we want very much improvement. Thanks very much for your help! Mark _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
