From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EMWnP-0001U7-FU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:20:23 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j93Joip3029932; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 19:50:44 GMT Received: from hermes.orakel.ods.org (dsl67-66.fastxdsl.nl [62.251.66.67]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j93JoiwR026219 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 19:50:44 GMT Received: from aphrodite.orakel.ods.org ([172.17.2.15]) by hermes.orakel.ods.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.50) id 1EMWSZ-0002Nt-SE for gentoo-osx@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:58:52 +0200 Message-ID: <43418D7B.70802@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:58:51 +0200 From: Grobian Organization: Gentoo Foundation User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.0+ (Macintosh/20050813) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-osx@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-osx@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-osx@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] Re: [Bug 107759] Gentoo for Mac OSX installer should be updated References: <80E5CDB2-CAE9-437B-B97A-4936FF57E074@gentoo.org> <433EC9A2.40901@gentoo.org> <0724A02E-087D-412C-97FD-A0268DDCFDDD@gentoo.org> <43402416.4050008@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Scanned: by hermes.orakel.ods.org (Exim Exiscan) using SpamAssassin and ClamAV X-Archives-Salt: 81981b1a-3ef1-4351-9f0d-fae84d8d6dd8 X-Archives-Hash: 73f708e86fe86f5ba4bdcae96ed811eb Kito wrote: > Right, but the libs that are 64-Bit aware should be enough to bootstrap > for a 64-Bit target. Agreed. >> One way to do it, would be to create a installer with "fat" libraries, >> and set the -arch cflags correctly (specifying multiple ones makes fat >> files) during the bootstrap process. This might not be what an >> advanced user wants, but pretty ok for a regular user. > > I've thought about this a lot, and I always come back with the feeling > that fat (or 'universal' if you like marketing terms) binaries don't > really have a place in portage. Ideally we wouldn't ship anything in an > installer that portage doesn't know how to build itself... which would > mean another keyword (ppc64-macos) and profile ( > default-darwin/macos/10.4/{x86,x86_64(?),ppc,ppc64} ). I can live with that. In the end I wouldn't want the ppc and i386 stuff on my machine if I don't want to use it. >> So last way to do it is just to keep it unofficial. That is for >> example if I put the 64-bits installer on my website, and give no >> support + a lot of warnings. An emerge info then would immediately >> reveal a 64-bits savvy user. > > I guess I don't follow how you would do this in a pkg installer without > having a valid profile and keyword. We have the overlay now, so you > could keep the profile there without polluting mainline tree. For the moment, I won't be doing anything on it :) But I still think there is nothing necessary (yet) to do it. > All that being said, ppc64/darwin is already an extinct species, despite > the fact it never really got started, so I'm not sure how much work > you'd want to put in to this in the long term... "64-bits, because I'm worth it" :p I think this whole idea is not of any interest for the moment. It's much more important that the infrastructure for a 'normal' Portage on OSX gets there. (And if I understood correctly, it's underway.) >> well, this is all just dreaming anyway for now. > > And what is life without dreams... boring! -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead -- gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list