[gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[Nick Dimiduk]

What is the current installation method for portage on osx?  I noticed 
the installer from http://metadistribution.org/macos/ is gone.  I've 
started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most 
recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be 
appropriate.  I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.

Also, is portage/scripts/bootstrap-darwin.sh still up to date?

Thanks,
-Nick

-- 
Nick Dimiduk
Gentoo Developer
ndimiduk (at) gentoo (dot) org
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[Grobian]

On 25-01-2006 18:08:04 -0500, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> What is the current installation method for portage on osx?  I noticed 
> the installer from http://metadistribution.org/macos/ is gone.  I've 

The installer is there, the official documentation is gone, because we
don't support that (anchient) installer any more.

> started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most 
> recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be 
> appropriate.  I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.

Does 2.1 work properly on OSX?  I have problems with 2.0.53 and up...

> Also, is portage/scripts/bootstrap-darwin.sh still up to date?

Don't know.  Maybe kito knows.

Be sure to ask, before you put a lot of efforts in it.  Current plans
are more or less to be targetted fully at the prefixed installer, so
maybe if you don't have a running setup any more, you should switch to
the prefixed project immediately.  Kito, comments?


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[Nick Dimiduk]

Grobian wrote:
> The installer is there, the official documentation is gone, because we
> don't support that (anchient) installer any more.

My mistake.  Didn't see it there...

>> started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most 
>> recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be 
>> appropriate.  I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.
> 
> Does 2.1 work properly on OSX?  I have problems with 2.0.53 and up...

Should I use the latest 2.0.52?

>> Also, is portage/scripts/bootstrap-darwin.sh still up to date?
> 
> Don't know.  Maybe kito knows.
> 
> Be sure to ask, before you put a lot of efforts in it.  Current plans
> are more or less to be targetted fully at the prefixed installer, so
> maybe if you don't have a running setup any more, you should switch to
> the prefixed project immediately.  Kito, comments?

My intention is to build a clean chroot for the reliable testing of 
packages for keywording.  I don't mind doing so for the prefix version 
of portage; my understanding is that it's not quite ready yet.  I'd like 
to work on keywording in the mean time.  I'll try to contact kito 
directly for more details.

-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[Grobian]

On 26-01-2006 12:28:02 -0500, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> >>started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most recent 
> >>portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be appropriate.  
> >>I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.
> >Does 2.1 work properly on OSX?  I have problems with 2.0.53 and up...
> 
> Should I use the latest 2.0.52?

Just "upgrade" to the latest from the installer (mind the
collision-protect issue...): 2.0.51.22-r3

> My intention is to build a clean chroot for the reliable testing of
> packages for keywording.  I don't mind doing so for the prefix version
> of portage; my understanding is that it's not quite ready yet.  I'd
> like to work on keywording in the mean time.  I'll try to contact kito
> directly for more details.

Good.  Very good.

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[Kito]

On Jan 26, 2006, at 2:22 AM, Grobian wrote:

> On 25-01-2006 18:08:04 -0500, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
>
>> started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most
>> recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be
>> appropriate.  I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.
>
> Does 2.1 work properly on OSX?  I have problems with 2.0.53 and up...

Hmm? I think the problems you have are profile related, and not  
portage. The prefix branch works fine all the way up to svn trunk.

>
>> Also, is portage/scripts/bootstrap-darwin.sh still up to date?
>
> Don't know.  Maybe kito knows.

Depends on what you want it todo, I used it to create a Tiger chroot  
using 10.4.2 install media a couple months ago.

--Kito

-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[Kito]

On Jan 26, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
>
>>> Also, is portage/scripts/bootstrap-darwin.sh still up to date?
>> Don't know.  Maybe kito knows.
>> Be sure to ask, before you put a lot of efforts in it.  Current plans
>> are more or less to be targetted fully at the prefixed installer, so
>> maybe if you don't have a running setup any more, you should  
>> switch to
>> the prefixed project immediately.  Kito, comments?
>
> My intention is to build a clean chroot for the reliable testing of  
> packages for keywording.  I don't mind doing so for the prefix  
> version of portage; my understanding is that it's not quite ready  
> yet.  I'd like to work on keywording in the mean time.  I'll try to  
> contact kito directly for more details.

Well, the current plan is to get everything thats currently {~}ppc- 
macos in the main tree, into the prefix tree. So I would much prefer  
if you didn't spend any effort on keywording more packages just yet.  
The prefix installer pkg in my homedir has some bugs, but its pretty  
easy to get setup, and I'm working on a new one that should be even  
easier, however that won't be ready for at least a week or 2.

If you can catch me on IRC I can help you get setup rather  
quickly...and we could definitely use the help (a doc? =)

--Kito

kito@gentoo.org



-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[Grobian]

On 26-01-2006 21:33:17 -0600, Kito wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2006, at 2:22 AM, Grobian wrote:
> 
> >On 25-01-2006 18:08:04 -0500, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> >
> >>started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most
> >>recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be
> >>appropriate.  I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.
> >
> >Does 2.1 work properly on OSX?  I have problems with 2.0.53 and up...
> 
> Hmm? I think the problems you have are profile related, and not  
> portage. The prefix branch works fine all the way up to svn trunk.

Nope, it's related to the later portage tools dropping 'hardcoded
support' for OSX, that's why I haven't keyworded the newer version,
because it simply generates python stack traces for some tools (not
emerge), which I don't consider to be "good".  It was deliberately not
fixed (sort of impossible), hence deliberately not keyworded by me.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1197 bytes --]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:14:26AM +0100, Grobian wrote:
> On 26-01-2006 21:33:17 -0600, Kito wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 2006, at 2:22 AM, Grobian wrote:
> > 
> > >On 25-01-2006 18:08:04 -0500, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> > >
> > >>started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most
> > >>recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be
> > >>appropriate.  I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.
> > >
> > >Does 2.1 work properly on OSX?  I have problems with 2.0.53 and up...
> > 
> > Hmm? I think the problems you have are profile related, and not  
> > portage. The prefix branch works fine all the way up to svn trunk.
> 
> Nope, it's related to the later portage tools dropping 'hardcoded
> support' for OSX, that's why I haven't keyworded the newer version,
> because it simply generates python stack traces for some tools (not
> emerge), which I don't consider to be "good".  It was deliberately not
> fixed (sort of impossible), hence deliberately not keyworded by me.

What tools?
Granted, buttload of portage bugs (thus easy to miss something), but 
portage bundled tools should be forcing sys.path mangling.

~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[Grobian]

On 27-01-2006 09:12:43 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Nope, it's related to the later portage tools dropping 'hardcoded
> > support' for OSX, that's why I haven't keyworded the newer version,
> > because it simply generates python stack traces for some tools (not
> > emerge), which I don't consider to be "good".  It was deliberately not
> > fixed (sort of impossible), hence deliberately not keyworded by me.
> 
> What tools?
> Granted, buttload of portage bugs (thus easy to miss something), but 
> portage bundled tools should be forcing sys.path mangling.

Bug #113551

Problem is IMHO that on our current setup our shells don't get the stuff
from portage, because the shells don't come with the gentoo rc scripts.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1114 bytes --]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 07:52:44PM +0100, Grobian wrote:
> On 27-01-2006 09:12:43 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > Nope, it's related to the later portage tools dropping 'hardcoded
> > > support' for OSX, that's why I haven't keyworded the newer version,
> > > because it simply generates python stack traces for some tools (not
> > > emerge), which I don't consider to be "good".  It was deliberately not
> > > fixed (sort of impossible), hence deliberately not keyworded by me.
> > 
> > What tools?
> > Granted, buttload of portage bugs (thus easy to miss something), but 
> > portage bundled tools should be forcing sys.path mangling.
> 
> Bug #113551
> 
> Problem is IMHO that on our current setup our shells don't get the stuff
> from portage, because the shells don't come with the gentoo rc scripts.

Err... legacy crap (yay).
Comment regarding "won't be a problem for long"- would be nice having 
some clarification on that one :)

The tools that are broken *still* should be external to portage 
(exception is emaint).  Any others, should have the hardcoded 
insertion.
~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[Grobian]

On 27-01-2006 11:16:05 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Bug #113551
> > 
> > Problem is IMHO that on our current setup our shells don't get the stuff
> > from portage, because the shells don't come with the gentoo rc scripts.
> 
> Err... legacy crap (yay).
> Comment regarding "won't be a problem for long"- would be nice having 
> some clarification on that one :)

Problem does not occur to me in prefixed portage.  "long" is a relative
thing.  :p

> The tools that are broken *still* should be external to portage 
> (exception is emaint).  Any others, should have the hardcoded 
> insertion.

Ehm, ok.  When will your 'fix' be available for us?  In next snapshot
release of portage 2.1?  Thanks by the way.



-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 988 bytes --]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 08:50:58PM +0100, Grobian wrote:
> On 27-01-2006 11:16:05 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > Bug #113551
> > > 
> > > Problem is IMHO that on our current setup our shells don't get the stuff
> > > from portage, because the shells don't come with the gentoo rc scripts.
> > 
> > Err... legacy crap (yay).
> > Comment regarding "won't be a problem for long"- would be nice having 
> > some clarification on that one :)
> 
> Problem does not occur to me in prefixed portage.  "long" is a relative
> thing.  :p
> 
> > The tools that are broken *still* should be external to portage 
> > (exception is emaint).  Any others, should have the hardcoded 
> > insertion.
> 
> Ehm, ok.  When will your 'fix' be available for us?  In next snapshot
> release of portage 2.1?  Thanks by the way.
At least for emaint, commited the path insertion earlier today.
You're going to need to be a bit more specific if there are others 
failing though.

~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-osx] Current installation method

[Marcin Gabrowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 239 bytes --]

Hi.

I've installed kito pkg on new mac. First, I've noticed that symlinks  
are absolute. But why not relative?
Changing $PREFIX makes bad dst of those files. I try prepare new pkg.

gaber

-- 
gg: 606 ripe: mg3051 jid: gaber/gentoo.pl



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]