At 2:11 PM +0000 11/7/12, Federico Calboli wrote:
On 7 Nov 2012, at 14:06, Jeremy Lavergne <jer...@lavergne.gotdns.org> wrote:
Which packages if I can ask? because they might be packages that
I do not want nor need.
I grepped to find 148 packages using our xcode includes explicitly
(xcode.*1\.0). There may be more that were manually built without
using our PortGroup files.
Unless these packages are essential to using macports, and thus
unavoidable, 148 packages are a trivial percentage of the packages
provided by macports. Couldn't I just avoid them altogether?
How so? I would have imagined it's the CLT that make the
difference, after all they mast be installed for macports.
...and Xcode must also be installed.
We do version detection using `xcodebuild -version` (see zlib for
an example). We would need an alternative to this if it's not
installed.
That's fine, and as I said I accept the space penalty of having to
have Xcode, but I fail to see why the versioning could not be done
on clang or llvm (or whatever thing is in the CLT package that could
be used for this)
I believe support is a big issue. It is hard enough for a port
maintainer to test with multiple versions of XCode. Expanding that
to multiple versions of the command line tools would make it that
much worse. Requiring the full XCode install isn't a big burden for
users. Things might be different if Apple was charging a non-trivial
amount of money for XCode.
Craig
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
