On 2009-01-02, at 21:37, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Porting existing unix software to bundles and frameworks doesn't work
well, because they expect to spew config files and .po files and all
kinds of other stuff all over the filesystem, and aren't good at
locating their resources through relative paths
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter da Silva wrote:
> On 2009-01-02, at 14:13, Benjamin Reed wrote:
>> Also, Apple's built-in installer package management is only an
>> installer, not a package manager.
>
> I'm not talking about Apple's *installer*, I'm talking about Apple's
> bun
On 2009-01-02, at 14:13, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Also, Apple's built-in installer package management is only an
installer, not a package manager.
I'm not talking about Apple's *installer*, I'm talking about Apple's
bundles and frameworks. Bundles and frameworks don't overwrite
anything, becaus
On Jan 2, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Also, Apple's built-in installer package management is only an
installer, not a package manager. It has no intelligence as to what
happens after things get installed (other than writing a manifest of
what it did, completely oblivious to whether i
On Jan 2, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Also, Apple's built-in installer package management is only an
installer, not a package manager. It has no intelligence as to what
happens after things get installed (other than writing a manifest of
what it did, completely oblivious to whether i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Walt Mankowski wrote:
> Yeah, I think that's fink. I don't know what MacPorts is based on.
Using tcl and it's own home-grown stuff. At one point it had layers to
serialize to RPMs, dpkg, and/or apple installer .pkg's, but I don't know
what's functio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter da Silva wrote:
> Or is that Fink? The fact that there's two competing ports-based systems
> for OS X is a third layer of hate.
That's fink. And you can thank darwinports for making their own system
after fink was already stable, because Apple
1 - If you're convinced I'm just stupid and that it's wicked-easy to
get consistent behaviour, I challenge you to do so. You would make
*many* bsd Puppet users happy.
I gave up on it to. It drove me away from FreeBSD entirely for our
application environment. If I can't guarantee a cons
On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 10:27:27AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
> I believe that MacPorts uses debian packages as an intermediate step, so
> it incorporates the best hate from both sides of the aisle (yes, all
> software is hateful, Ports is software, therefore it's hateful, some of
> us just fi
I believe that MacPorts uses debian packages as an intermediate step,
so it incorporates the best hate from both sides of the aisle (yes,
all software is hateful, Ports is software, therefore it's hateful,
some of us just find it less hateful than the alternative of building
the whole syste
On 2008-12-31 at 18:49 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts. I have no
> idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be this bad
> and have such a rabid following.
> God forbid I wanted to fix any of this because i
On Dec 31, 2008, at 7:36 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Joshua Juran wrote:
On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts. I
have no
idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be
this bad
and have su
Joshua Juran wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
>> My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts. I
>> have no
>> idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be
>> this bad
>> and have such a rabid following.
>
> Wait... isn't
On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts.
I have no
idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be
this bad
and have such a rabid following.
Wait... isn't this a Mac? I thought you could be
My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts. I have no
idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be this bad
and have such a rabid following.
First off, it has to compile everything from fucking source. This is great
until you want to install something
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:23:06AM -0800, Gerry Lawrence wrote:
> Disclaimer: I now (and recently) work in the largest BSD shop in the
> world. See if you can guess where that is.
Apple?
Luke Kanies wrote:
>
>
> I've always wondered about this; there must be some sort of
> "thinks-like-bsd" gene, afaict, because you either love it or hate it.
It's not genetics, it's experience.
> In my experience, it's nearly impossible to write software that
> manages *bsd packages;
That's inte
On Dec 31, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Gerry Lawrence wrote:
Top posting, as it's the new year.
I gotta agree with this. Freebsd's package manager and openbsd's
package management are both superior in
execution and design. Compared to any of the linux tools, including
RPM, apt-get, or Gentoo's, it's
Top posting, as it's the new year.
I gotta agree with this. Freebsd's package manager and openbsd's
package management are both superior in
execution and design. Compared to any of the linux tools, including
RPM, apt-get, or Gentoo's, it's not even close.
Don't get me wrong, I love the littl
19 matches
Mail list logo
