[gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Taylor Christopher P]

Over the weekend, I was able to 'port portage' to run on OS X 10.1. I've a
couple questions about this whole process...

First off, rsync doesn't like this expression:

/usr/bin/rsync -rlptDvz --progress --stats --delete --timeout=180
--exclude='distfiles/*' --exclude='packages/*'
rsync://rsync.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage/* /sw/usr/portage

when i run the same command using this rsync location

rsync://rsync.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage/

My shell [tcsh and bash] doesn't respond with a "rsync is bitching about a
malformed rsync expression".

So to finalize my question, how can i remove that last "*" from the rsync
expression? I've greped the emerge files and portage source files with
little/no success.

My second question is related to package maintainership. Do i need to
create a new ARCH variable? Something like "Darwin5.6-Apple-PPC"?

I've read the threads on porting portage to different gnu/linux distros
[that's how i went about porting portage to os x/darwin] and the thread
from the guy that ported portage to FreeBSD. No real success there, hence,
the email to this listserv.

Any input/help about this stuff would be much appreciated. Oh, I've almost
figured out the group/user permission issues with os x. It's weird b/c
editing the passwd and group files in /etc doesn't really work like it
does in the standard *nix enviornment.

And if anyone else is doing something like this with some success - I'd
like some help or just a note so that I know that I'm not the only one
who's not a fan of Fink or the gnu-darwin ports projects [they're
packages are too old and i don't really like their systems, I love
portage on my desktop machine and i think having it on darwin/os x would
be very cool].

thanks all,
Christopher Paul Taylor, Clemson University Computer Science Dept.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1131 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:02:59PM -0400, Taylor Christopher P wrote:
> And if anyone else is doing something like this with some success - I'd
> like some help or just a note so that I know that I'm not the only one
> who's not a fan of Fink or the gnu-darwin ports projects [they're
> packages are too old and i don't really like their systems, I love
> portage on my desktop machine and i think having it on darwin/os x would
> be very cool].

Me too, in fact reading about your desire to get Portage running on OS X
almost got me excited enough to run out and buy a Mac (I don't have one
currently.) But since I don't have the funds available for that... :/

One thing you could do is see if you could set up an OS X machine and give
me root access and then I can see what I can do to get Portage working.

I'm willing to make a decent investment of time for this, because the sooner
we get Portage running on OS X, the sooner people can start making ebuilds
for it. Just needs a little push to get off the ground.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins
Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Pieter Van den Abeele]

We have an open bug on it. afaik sethbc and vladimir were working on this.
You might get in contact with them. Gentoo PPC fully supports the idea of
bringing portage to OS X :-) great job

Pieter

On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Daniel Robbins wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:02:59PM -0400, Taylor Christopher P wrote:
> > And if anyone else is doing something like this with some success - I'd
> > like some help or just a note so that I know that I'm not the only one
> > who's not a fan of Fink or the gnu-darwin ports projects [they're
> > packages are too old and i don't really like their systems, I love
> > portage on my desktop machine and i think having it on darwin/os x would
> > be very cool].
>
> Me too, in fact reading about your desire to get Portage running on OS X
> almost got me excited enough to run out and buy a Mac (I don't have one
> currently.) But since I don't have the funds available for that... :/
>
> One thing you could do is see if you could set up an OS X machine and give
> me root access and then I can see what I can do to get Portage working.
>
> I'm willing to make a decent investment of time for this, because the sooner
> we get Portage running on OS X, the sooner people can start making ebuilds
> for it. Just needs a little push to get off the ground.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> --
> Daniel Robbins
> Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
> http://www.gentoo.org
>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Taylor Christopher P]

when you say "open bug" whatcha mean? oh, and i need people to help me
figure out somethings with the source... i remember vlad from my early
gentoo-ppc days. i'll need to email them both...

thanks!

Christopher Paul Taylor, Clemson University Computer Science Dept.

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Pieter Van den Abeele wrote:

> We have an open bug on it. afaik sethbc and vladimir were working on this.
> You might get in contact with them. Gentoo PPC fully supports the idea of
> bringing portage to OS X :-) great job
>
> Pieter
>
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Daniel Robbins wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:02:59PM -0400, Taylor Christopher P wrote:
> > > And if anyone else is doing something like this with some success - I'd
> > > like some help or just a note so that I know that I'm not the only one
> > > who's not a fan of Fink or the gnu-darwin ports projects [they're
> > > packages are too old and i don't really like their systems, I love
> > > portage on my desktop machine and i think having it on darwin/os x would
> > > be very cool].
> >
> > Me too, in fact reading about your desire to get Portage running on OS X
> > almost got me excited enough to run out and buy a Mac (I don't have one
> > currently.) But since I don't have the funds available for that... :/
> >
> > One thing you could do is see if you could set up an OS X machine and give
> > me root access and then I can see what I can do to get Portage working.
> >
> > I'm willing to make a decent investment of time for this, because the sooner
> > we get Portage running on OS X, the sooner people can start making ebuilds
> > for it. Just needs a little push to get off the ground.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Robbins
> > Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
> > http://www.gentoo.org
> >
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Pieter Van den Abeele]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Taylor Christopher P wrote:

> when you say "open bug" whatcha mean? oh, and i need people to help me
> figure out somethings with the source... i remember vlad from my early
> gentoo-ppc days. i'll need to email them both...

open bug: vlad opened a bug assigned to sethbc regarding this matter
(can't remember the bug# but it was assigned to sethbc or vlad)

Pieter

> thanks!
>
> Christopher Paul Taylor, Clemson University Computer Science Dept.
>
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Pieter Van den Abeele wrote:
>
> > We have an open bug on it. afaik sethbc and vladimir were working on this.
> > You might get in contact with them. Gentoo PPC fully supports the idea of
> > bringing portage to OS X :-) great job
> >
> > Pieter
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:02:59PM -0400, Taylor Christopher P wrote:
> > > > And if anyone else is doing something like this with some success - I'd
> > > > like some help or just a note so that I know that I'm not the only one
> > > > who's not a fan of Fink or the gnu-darwin ports projects [they're
> > > > packages are too old and i don't really like their systems, I love
> > > > portage on my desktop machine and i think having it on darwin/os x would
> > > > be very cool].
> > >
> > > Me too, in fact reading about your desire to get Portage running on OS X
> > > almost got me excited enough to run out and buy a Mac (I don't have one
> > > currently.) But since I don't have the funds available for that... :/
> > >
> > > One thing you could do is see if you could set up an OS X machine and give
> > > me root access and then I can see what I can do to get Portage working.
> > >
> > > I'm willing to make a decent investment of time for this, because the sooner
> > > we get Portage running on OS X, the sooner people can start making ebuilds
> > > for it. Just needs a little push to get off the ground.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daniel Robbins
> > > Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
> > > http://www.gentoo.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> >
> >
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 671 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:42:34PM -0400, Taylor Christopher P wrote:
> when you say "open bug" whatcha mean? oh, and i need people to help me
> figure out somethings with the source... i remember vlad from my early
> gentoo-ppc days. i'll need to email them both...
> 
> thanks!

Probably best if I get Portage working initially under OS X. I've started
the port today and I'm not expecting that much difficulty -- should have it
mostly done some time today. We can officially support OS X and make this
into an official Gentoo project hosted on www.gentoo.org. :)

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins
Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Jon Portnoy]

On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 04:07:39PM -0600, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:42:34PM -0400, Taylor Christopher P wrote:
> > when you say "open bug" whatcha mean? oh, and i need people to help me
> > figure out somethings with the source... i remember vlad from my early
> > gentoo-ppc days. i'll need to email them both...
> > 
> > thanks!
> 
> Probably best if I get Portage working initially under OS X. I've started
> the port today and I'm not expecting that much difficulty -- should have it
> mostly done some time today. We can officially support OS X and make this
> into an official Gentoo project hosted on www.gentoo.org. :)
> 
> Best Regards,
> 


Are there licensing issues involved?

Aren't there proprietary aspects to OS X that would prevent us from 
distributing it the usual way?

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Pieter Van den Abeele]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Jon Portnoy wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 04:07:39PM -0600, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:42:34PM -0400, Taylor Christopher P wrote:
> > > when you say "open bug" whatcha mean? oh, and i need people to help me
> > > figure out somethings with the source... i remember vlad from my early
> > > gentoo-ppc days. i'll need to email them both...
> > >
> > > thanks!
> >
> > Probably best if I get Portage working initially under OS X. I've started
> > the port today and I'm not expecting that much difficulty -- should have it
> > mostly done some time today. We can officially support OS X and make this
> > into an official Gentoo project hosted on www.gentoo.org. :)
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
>
>
> Are there licensing issues involved?
>
> Aren't there proprietary aspects to OS X that would prevent us from
> distributing it the usual way?

I think distributing OS X with portage/OSX would be out of the question,
unless apple wants to include it in their next release, which brings up an
interesting post by Jordan Hubbard:

http://opendarwin.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-June/000295.html

I think this link was posted to -ppc some time ago

> --
> Jon Portnoy
> avenj/irc.freenode.net
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Nicholas Wourms]

Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:42:34PM -0400, Taylor Christopher P wrote:
> 
>>when you say "open bug" whatcha mean? oh, and i need people to help me
>>figure out somethings with the source... i remember vlad from my early
>>gentoo-ppc days. i'll need to email them both...
>>
>>thanks!
> 
> 
> Probably best if I get Portage working initially under OS X. I've started
> the port today and I'm not expecting that much difficulty -- should have it
> mostly done some time today. We can officially support OS X and make this
> into an official Gentoo project hosted on www.gentoo.org. :)
> 
> Best Regards,
> 

I've have a MacOS X machine as well, so I'd be willing to help test and 
perhaps contribute (as time allows)...  IIRC, SpanKY has an OS X machine 
as well, so I'd say we are pretty much covered in the OS X department :-D.

One thing to note, libtool support on OS X sucks bug time, especially 
with libtool-1.4.  We should give some thought to integrating a libtool 
1.5 ebuild now that it is released and stable.

Cheers,
Nicholas


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Taylor Christopher P]

no there shouldn't be .

Christopher Paul Taylor, Clemson University Computer Science Dept.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Joseph Hardin]

I have a Powerbook G4 Ti(1ghz) that i'd be willing to help test stuff 
with.
								Joe

On Tuesday, Jun 3, 2003, at 17:12 America/Denver, Nicholas Wourms wrote:

> Daniel Robbins wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:42:34PM -0400, Taylor Christopher P wrote:
>>> when you say "open bug" whatcha mean? oh, and i need people to help 
>>> me
>>> figure out somethings with the source... i remember vlad from my 
>>> early
>>> gentoo-ppc days. i'll need to email them both...
>>>
>>> thanks!
>> Probably best if I get Portage working initially under OS X. I've 
>> started
>> the port today and I'm not expecting that much difficulty -- should 
>> have it
>> mostly done some time today. We can officially support OS X and make 
>> this
>> into an official Gentoo project hosted on www.gentoo.org. :)
>> Best Regards,
>
> I've have a MacOS X machine as well, so I'd be willing to help test 
> and perhaps contribute (as time allows)...  IIRC, SpanKY has an OS X 
> machine as well, so I'd say we are pretty much covered in the OS X 
> department :-D.
>
> One thing to note, libtool support on OS X sucks bug time, especially 
> with libtool-1.4.  We should give some thought to integrating a 
> libtool 1.5 ebuild now that it is released and stable.
>
> Cheers,
> Nicholas
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Joseph Carter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 04:07:39PM -0600, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> > when you say "open bug" whatcha mean? oh, and i need people to help me
> > figure out somethings with the source... i remember vlad from my early
> > gentoo-ppc days. i'll need to email them both...
> > 
> > thanks!
> 
> Probably best if I get Portage working initially under OS X. I've started
> the port today and I'm not expecting that much difficulty -- should have it
> mostly done some time today. We can officially support OS X and make this
> into an official Gentoo project hosted on www.gentoo.org. :)

Any plans to cooperate with the fink people on this?  That might be
getting a bit out of the realm of what's normal and expected for Gentoo,
but I happen to think that portage is a lot better suited to building fink
packages than anything Debian's got these days.

That's just my opinion of course.  ;)

- -- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net>        A man wrapped up in himself
                                               makes a very small package.
 
!netgod:*! time flies when youre using linux
!doogie:*! yeah, infinite loops in 5 seconds.
!Teknix:*! has anyone re-tested that with 2.2.x ?
!netgod:*! yeah, 4 seconds now
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: 1024D/20F62261F1857A3E79FC44F98FF7D7A3DCF9DAB3

iEYEARECAAYFAj7drcoACgkQj/fXo9z52rOSAgCghyuB6Iaz4vkSnHv0+KSGbvuF
XBQAn1TaA8cXFRuvkZGqWZy5tPE/VlJl
=WkKr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Taylor Christopher P]

not as of yet. i think it'd be nice if we could have someone write an app
that would take in fink package descriptions and translate them into
portage packages. all the details for building are in the fink packages
and maybe that app could be used across gentoo - might be an interesting
idea [just keep it python oriented or maybe perl or something. i dunno,
just spitting out ideas right now].

Christopher Paul Taylor, Clemson University Computer Science Dept.

On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Joseph Carter wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 04:07:39PM -0600, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> > > when you say "open bug" whatcha mean? oh, and i need people to help me
> > > figure out somethings with the source... i remember vlad from my early
> > > gentoo-ppc days. i'll need to email them both...
> > >
> > > thanks!
> >
> > Probably best if I get Portage working initially under OS X. I've started
> > the port today and I'm not expecting that much difficulty -- should have it
> > mostly done some time today. We can officially support OS X and make this
> > into an official Gentoo project hosted on www.gentoo.org. :)
>
> Any plans to cooperate with the fink people on this?  That might be
> getting a bit out of the realm of what's normal and expected for Gentoo,
> but I happen to think that portage is a lot better suited to building fink
> packages than anything Debian's got these days.
>
> That's just my opinion of course.  ;)
>
> - --
> Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net>        A man wrapped up in himself
>                                                makes a very small package.
>
> !netgod:*! time flies when youre using linux
> !doogie:*! yeah, infinite loops in 5 seconds.
> !Teknix:*! has anyone re-tested that with 2.2.x ?
> !netgod:*! yeah, 4 seconds now
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: 1024D/20F62261F1857A3E79FC44F98FF7D7A3DCF9DAB3
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAj7drcoACgkQj/fXo9z52rOSAgCghyuB6Iaz4vkSnHv0+KSGbvuF
> XBQAn1TaA8cXFRuvkZGqWZy5tPE/VlJl
> =WkKr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Pieter Van den Abeele]

It might be a good idea to put this in cvs whatever, get things organized
a bit.

Pieter

On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Taylor Christopher P wrote:

> hey, here's source if you don't have it already...
>
> Christopher Paul Taylor, Clemson University Computer Science Dept.
>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Sascha Schwabbauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1969 bytes --]

Heya, 
I have an iMac G4 700 MHz here, running OS X too,
it isnt the fastest PPC, but the iMac often has weird problems, so its probably good if somebody tests the stuff on it. I'd like to help you out with that, maybe we should create an IRC Channel or at least a Mailinglist (Drobbins -- can I? :)).

regards

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:16:03 -0600
Joseph Hardin <jhlazer@charter.net> wrote:

> I have a Powerbook G4 Ti(1ghz) that i'd be willing to help test stuff 
> with.
> 								Joe
> 
> On Tuesday, Jun 3, 2003, at 17:12 America/Denver, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> 
> > Daniel Robbins wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:42:34PM -0400, Taylor Christopher P wrote:
> >>> when you say "open bug" whatcha mean? oh, and i need people to help 
> >>> me
> >>> figure out somethings with the source... i remember vlad from my 
> >>> early
> >>> gentoo-ppc days. i'll need to email them both...
> >>>
> >>> thanks!
> >> Probably best if I get Portage working initially under OS X. I've 
> >> started
> >> the port today and I'm not expecting that much difficulty -- should 
> >> have it
> >> mostly done some time today. We can officially support OS X and make 
> >> this
> >> into an official Gentoo project hosted on www.gentoo.org. :)
> >> Best Regards,
> >
> > I've have a MacOS X machine as well, so I'd be willing to help test 
> > and perhaps contribute (as time allows)...  IIRC, SpanKY has an OS X 
> > machine as well, so I'd say we are pretty much covered in the OS X 
> > department :-D.
> >
> > One thing to note, libtool support on OS X sucks bug time, especially 
> > with libtool-1.4.  We should give some thought to integrating a 
> > libtool 1.5 ebuild now that it is released and stable.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Nicholas
> >

-- 
Sascha Schwabbauer
Developer / Mailadmin
Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/~cybersystem

PGP Key:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x84EA0C8F
Key fingerprint = 4BDD CC71 DBDB 58A5 78D0  3382 1EF6 2E96 84EA 0C8F

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[oford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2038 bytes --]

My iBook is also available for testing because fink blows goats ;)

./Owen

On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 10:07, Sascha Schwabbauer wrote:
> Heya, 
> I have an iMac G4 700 MHz here, running OS X too,
> it isnt the fastest PPC, but the iMac often has weird problems, so its probably good if somebody tests the stuff on it. I'd like to help you out with that, maybe we should create an IRC Channel or at least a Mailinglist (Drobbins -- can I? :)).
> 
> regards
> 
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:16:03 -0600
> Joseph Hardin <jhlazer@charter.net> wrote:
> 
> > I have a Powerbook G4 Ti(1ghz) that i'd be willing to help test stuff 
> > with.
> > 								Joe
> > 
> > On Tuesday, Jun 3, 2003, at 17:12 America/Denver, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> > 
> > > Daniel Robbins wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:42:34PM -0400, Taylor Christopher P wrote:
> > >>> when you say "open bug" whatcha mean? oh, and i need people to help 
> > >>> me
> > >>> figure out somethings with the source... i remember vlad from my 
> > >>> early
> > >>> gentoo-ppc days. i'll need to email them both...
> > >>>
> > >>> thanks!
> > >> Probably best if I get Portage working initially under OS X. I've 
> > >> started
> > >> the port today and I'm not expecting that much difficulty -- should 
> > >> have it
> > >> mostly done some time today. We can officially support OS X and make 
> > >> this
> > >> into an official Gentoo project hosted on www.gentoo.org. :)
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >
> > > I've have a MacOS X machine as well, so I'd be willing to help test 
> > > and perhaps contribute (as time allows)...  IIRC, SpanKY has an OS X 
> > > machine as well, so I'd say we are pretty much covered in the OS X 
> > > department :-D.
> > >
> > > One thing to note, libtool support on OS X sucks bug time, especially 
> > > with libtool-1.4.  We should give some thought to integrating a 
> > > libtool 1.5 ebuild now that it is released and stable.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Nicholas
> > >
-- 
Owen Ford <oford@ev1.net>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Joseph Hardin]

I also have access to a dual 1 ghz system(powermac G4, and a dual 866 
system) I dont know how often i can use these(a friend owns em) but i 
can convince him to at least mess around with the stuff.
On Wednesday, Jun 4, 2003, at 10:39 America/Denver, oford wrote:

> My iBook is also available for testing because fink blows goats ;)
>
> ./Owen
>
> On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 10:07, Sascha Schwabbauer wrote:
>> Heya,
>> I have an iMac G4 700 MHz here, running OS X too,
>> it isnt the fastest PPC, but the iMac often has weird problems, so 
>> its probably good if somebody tests the stuff on it. I'd like to help 
>> you out with that, maybe we should create an IRC Channel or at least 
>> a Mailinglist (Drobbins -- can I? :)).
>>
>> regards
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:16:03 -0600
>> Joseph Hardin <jhlazer@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a Powerbook G4 Ti(1ghz) that i'd be willing to help test stuff
>>> with.
>>> 								Joe
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, Jun 3, 2003, at 17:12 America/Denver, Nicholas Wourms 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Daniel Robbins wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:42:34PM -0400, Taylor Christopher P 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> when you say "open bug" whatcha mean? oh, and i need people to 
>>>>>> help
>>>>>> me
>>>>>> figure out somethings with the source... i remember vlad from my
>>>>>> early
>>>>>> gentoo-ppc days. i'll need to email them both...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks!
>>>>> Probably best if I get Portage working initially under OS X. I've
>>>>> started
>>>>> the port today and I'm not expecting that much difficulty -- should
>>>>> have it
>>>>> mostly done some time today. We can officially support OS X and 
>>>>> make
>>>>> this
>>>>> into an official Gentoo project hosted on www.gentoo.org. :)
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> I've have a MacOS X machine as well, so I'd be willing to help test
>>>> and perhaps contribute (as time allows)...  IIRC, SpanKY has an OS X
>>>> machine as well, so I'd say we are pretty much covered in the OS X
>>>> department :-D.
>>>>
>>>> One thing to note, libtool support on OS X sucks bug time, 
>>>> especially
>>>> with libtool-1.4.  We should give some thought to integrating a
>>>> libtool 1.5 ebuild now that it is released and stable.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Nicholas
>>>>
> -- 
> Owen Ford <oford@ev1.net>
> <signature.asc>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Alvaro Figueroa]

On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 22:38, Pieter Van den Abeele wrote:

> I think distributing OS X with portage/OSX would be out of the question,

FWIW, once, as a proof of concept/it's a boring Sunday and there is to
mutch coffee, I made a script that grabbed a Solaris CD, grabbed the
kernel and other libs, trow them in with enough GNU tools to boot and
some other basic stuff... I think it had netpipes in it or something.

Perhaps the same thing could be done with Gentoo/OSX.

Of course that these iso images that the script outputted weren't
distributable, but they let me install Solaris without using the ugly
Solaris installer.

-- 
Alvaro Figueroa <fede2@fuerzag.ulatina.ac.cr>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

It might be worth considering to distribute only the open source parts of OSX
with Gentoo OSX. Then ebuilds for proprietary components could simply require
an OSX install CD, assuming ebuilds have a way for getting distfiles from
CD-ROM... The user probably wouldn't be able to install the OSX GUI within
the chroot this way, but the manual doesn't include XFree in the chroot part,
either, so this shouldn't make much of a difference...


On Saturday 07 June 2003 11:20 pm, Alvaro Figueroa wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 22:38, Pieter Van den Abeele wrote:
> > I think distributing OS X with portage/OSX would be out of the question,
>
> FWIW, once, as a proof of concept/it's a boring Sunday and there is to
> mutch coffee, I made a script that grabbed a Solaris CD, grabbed the
> kernel and other libs, trow them in with enough GNU tools to boot and
> some other basic stuff... I think it had netpipes in it or something.
>
> Perhaps the same thing could be done with Gentoo/OSX.
>
> Of course that these iso images that the script outputted weren't
> distributable, but they let me install Solaris without using the ugly
> Solaris installer.

- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+5RFEZl/BHdU+lYMRAnBgAJ9TAduBQCMPCjbPiHLn5Ohlr/XkLACgk5oM
aUO8XWdlMF6SVJGYMnKcd3c=
=xTXf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[leon j. breedt]

On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 20:52, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Any plans to cooperate with the fink people on this?  That might be
> getting a bit out of the realm of what's normal and expected for Gentoo,
> but I happen to think that portage is a lot better suited to building fink
> packages than anything Debian's got these days.
ah, i cannot resist responding to that jab from a developer's
perspective:

advantages of DebianStyle(R)(TM)(C):
- extensive set of tools to validate and QA packages (lintian is really
full-featured)
- picky policy on where things should go, what should always be in a
package, etc. and its documented, whereas some things are still kind of
up in the air for Gentoo, or more just guidelines...gives a consistent
feel to Debian.

disadvantages of DebianStyle(R)(TM)(C): 
- takes too long to get your head around the complete building process,
there are lots of docs and policy to take in, in more than one set of
documentation
- too many ways to set up the build process...the policy just dictates
some expected files and expected debian/rules targets, so you're free to
do it in your own way, which leads to wheel reinvention.
- ad-hoc external patch (changes outside of Debian-specific diffs)
mechanisms (dpatch, dbs, hand-rolled). dpatch requires you to create a
damn script for each external patch you want to apply (argh!!). there is
a tool to help with this, but still...
- too much legacy stuff hanging around (probably understandable, given
~8000 packages), so improvements to the package build system as a whole
are in tiny tiny increments: they're too scared of breaking backwards
compatibility for new features. NB: how is Gentoo going to handle
scaling while maintaining Portage feature increase?
- sucky kernel module building system (tried building nvidia-kernel on
Debian? heh...due to it using make-kpkg, less than intuitive compared to
'emerge nvidia-kernel')

disadvantages of ebuilds i've noticed:
- one ebuild can't generate multiple installed packages. this is why i
suppose eclasses were invented.

by no means a definitive list, but for those of you that aren't from a
Debian maintainer background, some things i ran into during my tenure.

Gentoo isn't doing all that badly, though. Debian was pretty ad-hoc in
the early days, so i'm positive for Gentoo's future.

i still use both Debian and Gentoo :)

leon


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Taylor Christopher P]

this is being taken care of currently.

the plan is to offer a liveCD installer that can do Darwin x86 & Darwin
PPC. That way you can gentoo with different kernels.

i've a couple friends with ibooks that love gnu/linux but would perfer to
be running apple written device drivers on an apple kernel - darwin is
that.

so a friend of mine is currently working on the bootstrapping process. as
we go forward with this effort there will be ebuilds for the darwin kernel
(offical and stable ebuilds will be based on whatever cvs versions that
apple hand picks for OS X releases. So, expect to see kernel updates based
on apple releases) we'll also offer cvs ebuilds [again, see the developer
policies about ebuild and cvs stuff] and then we'll start working the
entire 3 versions of X for OS X/Darwin.

Christopher Paul Taylor, Clemson University Computer Science Dept.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Luke-Jr wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> It might be worth considering to distribute only the open source parts of OSX
> with Gentoo OSX. Then ebuilds for proprietary components could simply require
> an OSX install CD, assuming ebuilds have a way for getting distfiles from
> CD-ROM... The user probably wouldn't be able to install the OSX GUI within
> the chroot this way, but the manual doesn't include XFree in the chroot part,
> either, so this shouldn't make much of a difference...
>
>
> On Saturday 07 June 2003 11:20 pm, Alvaro Figueroa wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 22:38, Pieter Van den Abeele wrote:
> > > I think distributing OS X with portage/OSX would be out of the question,
> >
> > FWIW, once, as a proof of concept/it's a boring Sunday and there is to
> > mutch coffee, I made a script that grabbed a Solaris CD, grabbed the
> > kernel and other libs, trow them in with enough GNU tools to boot and
> > some other basic stuff... I think it had netpipes in it or something.
> >
> > Perhaps the same thing could be done with Gentoo/OSX.
> >
> > Of course that these iso images that the script outputted weren't
> > distributable, but they let me install Solaris without using the ugly
> > Solaris installer.
>
> - --
> Luke-Jr
> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> http://www.gentoo.org/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE+5RFEZl/BHdU+lYMRAnBgAJ9TAduBQCMPCjbPiHLn5Ohlr/XkLACgk5oM
> aUO8XWdlMF6SVJGYMnKcd3c=
> =xTXf
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Ported to OS X

[Joseph Carter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 12:01:20PM +1200, leon j. breedt wrote:
> > Any plans to cooperate with the fink people on this?  That might be
> > getting a bit out of the realm of what's normal and expected for Gentoo,
> > but I happen to think that portage is a lot better suited to building fink
> > packages than anything Debian's got these days.
> ah, i cannot resist responding to that jab from a developer's
> perspective:

You are talking to a Debian developer, if one who has been inactive for
the last eight months or so and has kinda replaced all his Debian machines
with Gentoo in the time since..  ;)


> advantages of DebianStyle(R)(TM)(C):
> - extensive set of tools to validate and QA packages (lintian is really
> full-featured)

linda is looking very promising too.  linda is a python replacement for
lintian which is deemed easier to maintain, but not quite as full featured
yet.


> - picky policy on where things should go, what should always be in a
> package, etc. and its documented, whereas some things are still kind of
> up in the air for Gentoo, or more just guidelines...gives a consistent
> feel to Debian.

The Debian policy has very little to do with the mechanics of packaging.
It is purely a set of guidelines for how the packages should behave once
they get installed.  Gentoo could adopt Debian's existing policy wholesale
today and make all ebuilds conformant.  Note, I do not advise this - it
would be better to carefully evaluate each portion of the policy and
decide what should be kept and what should not be.  Some of the details
are things Gentoo likely does not agree with.


> disadvantages of DebianStyle(R)(TM)(C): 
> - takes too long to get your head around the complete building process,
> there are lots of docs and policy to take in, in more than one set of
> documentation

There are no less than six different build systems involved with Debian:
debmake (which refuses to die), debhelper, hand-rolled makefiles, multiple
versions of Doogie's Build System, and an assortment of minor things used
by a smaller group of people - including systems which try to emulate the
.spec format of RPM and Gentoo's own ebuilds.

All of thse build systems are maddeningly complex.  Mostly this has to do
with the complexity of splitting packages up into smaller pieces,
providing complex yet generic and limited configuration interfaces via
debconf, the differences between source and binary dependencies, etc.
Since Gentoo begins with source and always installs the documentation and
development tools with a package, nearly all of Debian's complexity is
gone, instantly.

There's also something to be said for a script and a bunch of extra files
for a source package system.  Beats a tarball and a diff anyday!


> - too many ways to set up the build process...the policy just dictates
> some expected files and expected debian/rules targets, so you're free to
> do it in your own way, which leads to wheel reinvention.
> - ad-hoc external patch (changes outside of Debian-specific diffs)
> mechanisms (dpatch, dbs, hand-rolled). dpatch requires you to create a
> damn script for each external patch you want to apply (argh!!). there is
> a tool to help with this, but still...

As noted above, yes.


> - too much legacy stuff hanging around (probably understandable, given
> ~8000 packages), so improvements to the package build system as a whole
> are in tiny tiny increments: they're too scared of breaking backwards
> compatibility for new features. NB: how is Gentoo going to handle
> scaling while maintaining Portage feature increase?

You have gone way off the topic of fink.  I noted only that Gentoo's build
system makes much more sense for building UNIX tools for a Mac than the
huge mess of things Debian uses.

fink does not have 8000 packages.  By the way, at last count, in December,
Debian had 11000 packages in unstable.  These packages must become stable
on a dozen different architectures at once and not have any significant
bugs which would make you not want to release them.  Is it any wonder that
Debian's last release was nearly a year ago and they're nowhere near ready
to produce another?  At the rate Debian grows, release complexity grows
exponentially.  This is not a good thing for Debian's users.


> - sucky kernel module building system (tried building nvidia-kernel on
> Debian? heh...due to it using make-kpkg, less than intuitive compared to
> 'emerge nvidia-kernel')

kernel-package is a very nifty tool (if complex and scary even by perl
standards..)  The problem is that people do not implement the modules
correctly.  This is noteworthy since supposedly using fakeroot you can
build your kernel without root priveleges in your home directory.  Yet
modules such as nvidia-kernel insist on /usr/src/linux.  What's up with
that?  They're bugs, naturally.  But if the maintainer does not want to
fix the bugs, they don't get fixed as a rule.  Sure there are NMUs, but
there is so much process and policy associated with them that bugs tend to
go unfixed.

If a package, say bash for example, has a bug in Gentoo, it gets fixed
either by the person who normally works on bash, or by the person who
decides the bug is annoying enough to fix.  In Debian, you may not fix the
bug no matter how annoying it is without consulting with bash's maintainer
unless you've tried and gotten no answer for a substantial period of time.
People who fix bugs after waiting weeks for a reply still get flamed for
not waiting long enough before trying to fix the bug.  Other times they
find that the maintainer didn't respond because he didn't consider the
thing a bug or whatever else..  These kinds of things just don't happen in
Gentoo because that's not the way this project operates.  Bugs are things
which need to be fixed, period.  If something is deemed not a bug by the
person who normally takes care of a package, there's a discussion (read;
flamewar) and some conclusion is eventually reached.  Never in Gentoo have
I seen someone get flamed for fixing what everyone agreed was a bug,
though.


> disadvantages of ebuilds i've noticed:
> - one ebuild can't generate multiple installed packages. this is why i
> suppose eclasses were invented.

I consider this a feature, to some extent.  Multiple packages really make
things more complex.  It's easy to want to be minimalist and not install
extra docs or headers with a library, but having to install all of these
things seperately is really user-unfriendly.


> by no means a definitive list, but for those of you that aren't from a
> Debian maintainer background, some things i ran into during my tenure.
> 
> Gentoo isn't doing all that badly, though. Debian was pretty ad-hoc in
> the early days, so i'm positive for Gentoo's future.

The way I look at it, with 11,000 packages and a dozen archs, Debian's
release prospects are sadly not very good these days.  The endless
politicking and policymaking are stifling, and the barrier to entry
continues to grow while many of the more intelligent and level-headed
developers (I will not even _pretend_ I am among the level-headed group)
have been leaving the project for years because they just can't deal with
it all anymore.

Hamm was a pretty solid release.  Slink was solid too, but it had some
problems that should have been fixed.  Potato was forever and a day in
coming, and moved Debian finally into the realm where 2.2 kernels were
officially supported, long after everyone else had migrated to 2.2 just so
that their distributions would boot on modern hardware.  An attempt to
update Slink to 2.2 was made, but rejected by Debian even though the work
had already been done - it was not necessary, they said, because potato
would be out "soon".  It was more than six months before potato was
actually released.

And potato too languished, lacking support for 2.4 kernels.  For more than
two years, it languished while Debian tried to stabilise woody.  Woody
shipped with a 2.2 kernel, but with the option for 2.4.18.  Note, the
2.4.18 kernel did not have the IDE patch necessary to operate on ATA133
controllers which had already been incorporated into 2.4.19pre1 before
woody was released.  Consiquently, I reported this a month before woody
was released, and nearly a year later Debian does not have a way to boot
woody on my ATA133 system.  If I wanted to install Debian on my system, I
would follow a procedure very similar to the one I use to install Gentoo.
In fact, I've had to do so twice.

And besides, if Hamm was solid, Slink was a little less so.  Potato was
forever in coming, and had a couple of problems when it finally did
arrive.  Woody had a number of problems when it was released.  Oh sure it
still beats the crap one must put up with if they use RedHat or Mandrake,
but Debian just isn't quite as good as it was when I got started with it,
about six months before Hamm was released.


Gentoo, on the other hand, has improved remarkably over the past year.  It
has gone from being less reliable than the average RPM distributions to
being just as reliable as Debian, maybe moreso if you consider Debian
unstable.  It lacks the easy configuration, and it is a pain in the ass to
compile everything all the time, but you know what?  If compiling
everything means that the quality of the system will not degrade as has
been happening with Debian, it's worth it.  The rest of Gentoo's problems
are small and will be fixed sooner or later.  If history is an indication
of the future, it will be sooner.


> i still use both Debian and Gentoo :)

I do not, at this time, have a place for Debian on my network.  There are
tasks to which Debian is ideally suited, even if it is no longer as good
as it used to be, but I'm not currently doing any of those things.

Right now the only task I have which is not handled best by Gentoo cannot
be done any better by any Linux.  The correct combination of hardware and
software for the task seems to be an iBook or Powerbook 12 with MacOS X
and some other Apple software, combined with a small collection of tools
ported from UNIX and Linux.  For the moment, that means fink, which is how
we got into this discussion in the first place.

- -- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net>      Available in cherry and grape
 
* Simunye is on a oc3->oc12
<daem0n> simmy: bite me. :)
<Simunye> daemon: okay :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: 1024D/20F62261F1857A3E79FC44F98FF7D7A3DCF9DAB3

iEYEARECAAYFAj7l03AACgkQj/fXo9z52rMj+QCgonUQY216NY6+QWqiCGlevGsZ
D3YAoKibUcPEMepuX9AmOGPzmRvWvRzK
=ARLc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list