On Nov 8, 2012, at 02:12, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
> I haven't looked for ages but is the OpenDarwin project still going? I had
> thoughts once upon-a-time that this project might get going well enough to
> provide an entire Open Source platform that macports would be a great
> candidate for b
On 8 Nov 2012, at 18:29, William H. Magill wrote:
> On Nov 07, 2012, at 08:47 AM, Federico Calboli wrote:
>
>> After having a go with homebrew I decided that macport's use of /opt/local
>> is significantly less likely to screw up my system, so I am now quite firmly
>> on the macport side of t
On Nov 08, 2012, at 01:29 PM, "William H. Magill" wrote:On Nov 07, 2012, at 08:47 AM, Federico Calboli wrote:After having a go with homebrew I decided that macport's use of /opt/local is significantly less likely to screw up my system, so I am now quite firmly on the macport side of the camp. One
/ Craig Treleaven wrote on Wed 7.Nov'12 at 9:37:41 -0400 /
> At 2:11 PM + 11/7/12, Federico Calboli wrote:
> >On 7 Nov 2012, at 14:06, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
> >
> >>> Which packages if I can ask? because they might be packages
> >>>that I do not want nor need.
> >>
> >> I grepped to find
(base)newmbp:ports mateo$ (grep -lR 'PortGroup.*xcode.*1\.0' .|xargs -n 1
dirname )|tee /dev/tty|wc
./_resources/port1.0/group
./aqua/AppHack
./aqua/AppKiDo
./aqua/AquaLess
./aqua/aquaterm
./aqua/ArpSpyX
./aqua/arrsync
./aqua/AssignmentTrackerX
./aqua/BGHUDAppKit
./aqua/BiggerSQL
./aqua/binclocken
On 11/7/12 3:06 PM, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
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.
please print the list
___
macports-users mailin
> 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?
A few ideas come to mind:
gtk2/gtk3 and zlib use xcode to ensure building by at least a specific
At 2:11 PM + 11/7/12, Federico Calboli wrote:
On 7 Nov 2012, at 14:06, Jeremy Lavergne 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 t
On 7 Nov 2012, at 14:06, Jeremy Lavergne 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
> 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.
> How so? I would have imagined it's th
On 7 Nov 2012, at 13:49, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>> After having a go with homebrew I decided that macport's use of /opt/local
>> is significantly less likely to screw up my system, so I am now quite firmly
>> on the macport side of the camp. One good thing homebrew has though is the
>> fact
> After having a go with homebrew I decided that macport's use of /opt/local is
> significantly less likely to screw up my system, so I am now quite firmly on
> the macport side of the camp. One good thing homebrew has though is the fact
> it only requires the command line tools, not the whole
After having a go with homebrew I decided that macport's use of /opt/local is
significantly less likely to screw up my system, so I am now quite firmly on
the macport side of the camp. One good thing homebrew has though is the fact
it only requires the command line tools, not the whole Xcode in
13 matches
Mail list logo
