[gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Grobian]

Hi all (well, ok, Hi Kito, Lina and Hasan basically ;))

I'd like to start a little discussion on keywording packages ppc-macos 
(stable).

As you might recall, I've expressed my concerns about broken stable and 
unstable packages in the tree before, and had some crazy ideas about 
implementing a testing system on it.  Not much advance in that area, 
mainly due to time limitations, as well as other projects that keep me 
busy (just to give you a little update):
- MonetDB/Armada simulator
- MonetDB/5
- Going through historic bug reports on bugzilla for ppc-macos
- Emailing you guys in order to try and keep things running

Last weekend, when I was in bug-fixing batch-mode, I got into a 
discussion with Kito, when he encountered another broken package marked 
as stable.  It had no Changelog entry for the stable keyword, but 
luckily CVS doesn't lie.  It brought on the topic of keywording packages 
stable for ppc-macos.  To fuzzy quote Kito:

"If an unstable package is broken, that is a serious problem, but ok, 
it's unstable for a reason.  However, if a *stable* package is broken..."

I couldn't agree more with this, as stable packages just should work. 
But I don't think there will be people here that disagree.  However, I 
also agree with Kito that we *should not* mark packages stable when we 
don't have to.  I will elaborate on this stand point from my side here.

More and more I start to realise and experience the fact that Portage on 
OSX as it is now, is nothing more than a dirty hack, which results in 
much more dirty, tricky, hairy and ugly hacks.  We lie, cheat and steal 
to get Portage doing what we want it to do, and keep on relying on pure 
coincidence and luck that everything works as portage expects.  Hence, 
saying a package is *stable* is almost a contradiction in itself, as the 
whole engine behind it (portage) cannot be considered to be solid and 
stable fitted on OSX.

I propose to keep the following keywording rules for whatever we do from 
now:
1) only keyword new packages ~ppc-macos; don't stable them after a month
2) only stable new ebuilds if this is required by security stuff and we 
have an older ebuild that is stable

Given the two rules above, there are some extra details:
- not stabling packages means no worries on keeping track of them
- with the userbase we have (feedback), it feels unreasonable to mark 
anything stable after a month hearing nothing on it, you don't even know 
if someone tried it!
- by keeping stuff unstable we underline the experimental nature of 
Portage on OSX and perhaps slow down broad use of Portage
- slowing doen further use is good at the moment, because when a new 
Portage will give us the proper handles, every current user has to 
switch somehow, and for us big things will change, so better have people 
starting from scratch then
- we are simply in many cases not able to offer an alternative to fink 
and DP quality wise, we're working hard, but lack the proper setup 
(think of missing/lacking perl, gtk+, etc)
- we reduce running the risk of having a broken stable package in portage
- and finally, we will be better prepared to let portage 'force' doing 
many updates once we stable them if we have a better Portage infrastructure.

So, what do you guys think?


-- 
Fabian Groffen
eBuild && Porting
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Nick Dimiduk]

Grobian wrote:
> I'd like to start a little discussion on keywording packages ppc-macos 
> (stable).
...
> So, what do you guys think?
> 

I generally agree with your comments.  I haven't marked clisp stable 
because even I haven't had time to muck with it much.  This is very much 
a work in progress; "stable" gives, I think, much false hope.  In my 
experience, broken packages from the stable line are quite common (I 
lack examples currently) and do us no credit.

Further, I think it wise to consider OSX versions in keywording: things 
which work just fine for devs using Panther appear to break in Tiger, 
and vice-versa (again, no specific examples).  This is a separate issue, 
however I think it is something we all should remember before marking a 
package "stable".

-Nick Dimiduk
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Kito]

On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Grobian wrote:

> Hi all (well, ok, Hi Kito, Lina and Hasan basically ;))

[...]

> So, what do you guys think?
>

This might possibly be the first gentoo related email I've ever read  
that I agreed with 100%.

Needless to say, I support all of the proposals you wrote.

On a somewhat related note, we need to decide sooner than later on  
how distinguish between the collision-protect and non-collision- 
protected profiles in ebuilds, as some things that are getting in the  
tree break with a proper gentoo environment, mostly auto{conf,make}  
issues at the moment (-a -c -f stuff, etc) , as well as python issues  
creeping up as well, but this will probably get more convoluted very  
shortly...

--Kito

>
> -- 
> Fabian Groffen
> eBuild && Porting
> Gentoo for Mac OS X
> -- 
> gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
>

-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Finn Thain]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:

> 
> On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Grobian wrote:
> 
> On a somewhat related note, we need to decide sooner than later on how 
> distinguish between the collision-protect and non-collision-protected 
> profiles in ebuilds, as some things that are getting in the tree break 
> with a proper gentoo environment, mostly auto{conf,make} issues at the 
> moment (-a -c -f stuff, etc) , as well as python issues creeping up as 
> well, but this will probably get more convoluted very shortly...

Convoluted? That would be my cue :-p

I'll assume that the darwin profile has prefix /, with no special PATH, 
while the "portage for os x/second class citizen" profile gets prefix 
(say) /opt/gentoo, and PATH prepended with /opt/gentoo/bin:/opt/gentoo/... 
[1].

Now, if an ebuild needs to know that it has "2nd class" status, wouldn't a 
use flag be appropriate? And if you were to implement such a use flag, 
could it not be useful to other second-class citizens? For example, in 
"portage for non-Gentoo Linux" or "portage for solaris" profiles.

-f

[1] On reflection, I agree with grobian. I don't think it makes sense to 
try and support an appended PATH (though it may be useful for some as an 
unsupported option.)

> --Kito
> 
> >
> >-- 
> >Fabian Groffen
> >eBuild && Porting
> >Gentoo for Mac OS X
> >-- 
> >gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
> >
> 
> 
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Finn Thain]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Finn Thain wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Grobian wrote:
> > 
> > On a somewhat related note, we need to decide sooner than later on how 
> > distinguish between the collision-protect and non-collision-protected 
> > profiles in ebuilds, as some things that are getting in the tree break 
> > with a proper gentoo environment, mostly auto{conf,make} issues at the 
> > moment (-a -c -f stuff, etc) , as well as python issues creeping up as 
> > well, but this will probably get more convoluted very shortly...

[snip]
> 
> Now, if an ebuild needs to know that it has "2nd class" status, wouldn't a 
> use flag be appropriate? And if you were to implement such a use flag, 
> could it not be useful to other second-class citizens? For example, in 
> "portage for non-Gentoo Linux" or "portage for solaris" profiles.

Actually, such a use flag is probably redundant. Isn't that what the the 
"macos" in "ppc-macos" is for?

I suspect the whole question goes away when portage gets prefixes. So my 
post was probably just noise. Sorry.

-f
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Kito]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 3:51 AM, Finn Thain wrote:

>
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Finn Thain wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Grobian wrote:
>>>
>>> On a somewhat related note, we need to decide sooner than later  
>>> on how
>>> distinguish between the collision-protect and non-collision- 
>>> protected
>>> profiles in ebuilds, as some things that are getting in the tree  
>>> break
>>> with a proper gentoo environment, mostly auto{conf,make} issues  
>>> at the
>>> moment (-a -c -f stuff, etc) , as well as python issues creeping  
>>> up as
>>> well, but this will probably get more convoluted very shortly...
>
> [snip]
>>
>> Now, if an ebuild needs to know that it has "2nd class" status,  
>> wouldn't a
>> use flag be appropriate? And if you were to implement such a use  
>> flag,
>> could it not be useful to other second-class citizens? For  
>> example, in
>> "portage for non-Gentoo Linux" or "portage for solaris" profiles.
>
> Actually, such a use flag is probably redundant. Isn't that what  
> the the
> "macos" in "ppc-macos" is for?

Well, thats part of the problem. As Darwin is not self-hosting  
currently, it requires a highly modified OS X environment(read:  
progressive profile) to built it, and the progressive profile shares  
the same keyword, *-macos, with the collision-protected profile.  
Another keyword isn't really feasible, I was thinking more along the  
lines of a variable added to the use-expand list in the profiles.

>
> I suspect the whole question goes away when portage gets prefixes.  
> So my
> post was probably just noise. Sorry.
>
> -f
> -- 
> gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
>

-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Finn Thain]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:

> 
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 3:51 AM, Finn Thain wrote:
> 
> >
> >On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Finn Thain wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Grobian wrote:
> > > >
> > > >On a somewhat related note, we need to decide sooner than later on 
> > > >how distinguish between the collision-protect and 
> > > >non-collision-protected profiles in ebuilds, as some things that 
> > > >are getting in the tree break with a proper gentoo environment, 
> > > >mostly auto{conf,make} issues at the moment (-a -c -f stuff, etc) , 
> > > >as well as python issues creeping up as well, but this will 
> > > >probably get more convoluted very shortly...
> >
> >[snip]
> > >
> > >Now, if an ebuild needs to know that it has "2nd class" status, 
> > >wouldn't a use flag be appropriate? And if you were to implement such 
> > >a use flag, could it not be useful to other second-class citizens? 
> > >For example, in "portage for non-Gentoo Linux" or "portage for 
> > >solaris" profiles.
> >
> >Actually, such a use flag is probably redundant. Isn't that what the 
> >the "macos" in "ppc-macos" is for?
> 
> Well, thats part of the problem. As Darwin is not self-hosting 
> currently, it requires a highly modified OS X environment(read: 
> progressive profile) to built it, and the progressive profile shares the 
> same keyword, *-macos, with the collision-protected profile. Another 
> keyword isn't really feasible, I was thinking more along the lines of a 
> variable added to the use-expand list in the profiles.

I just read http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82513

What did happen to GLEP 22?

I have to say, I find the idea of over-loading the collision-protect hack 
with new macos-specific meaning inside N different ebuilds (by FEATURES 
expansion) quite unpleasant.

To my mind, progressive implies keyword=ppc-darwin/ppc-od, and "2nd class" 
implies ppc-macos and that implies a prefix (substitute x86 or x64 for ppc 
as you see fit).

I don't think it likely that apple will open source Mac OS X (or eleven, 
or even system seven). I mean, is it likely that a macos profile could 
ever be anything but second fiddle?

-f

> 
> >
> >I suspect the whole question goes away when portage gets prefixes. So my
> >post was probably just noise. Sorry.
> >
> >-f
> >-- 
> >gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
> >
> 
> 
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Finn Thain]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Finn Thain wrote:

> To my mind, progressive implies keyword=ppc-darwin/ppc-od, and "2nd class" 
> implies ppc-macos and that implies a prefix (substitute x86 or x64 for ppc 
> as you see fit).

What about adding a new ppc-darwin profile, to mean "progressive" or 
upstream darwin? (ppc-od is not quite the same as OS X Darwin.)

Then, ppc-macos could inherit ppc-darwin and add collision-protect until 
we get prefixes.

-f
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Kito]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:57 AM, Finn Thain wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2005, at 3:51 AM, Finn Thain wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Finn Thain wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Grobian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On a somewhat related note, we need to decide sooner than later on
>>>>> how distinguish between the collision-protect and
>>>>> non-collision-protected profiles in ebuilds, as some things that
>>>>> are getting in the tree break with a proper gentoo environment,
>>>>> mostly auto{conf,make} issues at the moment (-a -c -f stuff,  
>>>>> etc) ,
>>>>> as well as python issues creeping up as well, but this will
>>>>> probably get more convoluted very shortly...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Now, if an ebuild needs to know that it has "2nd class" status,
>>>> wouldn't a use flag be appropriate? And if you were to implement  
>>>> such
>>>> a use flag, could it not be useful to other second-class citizens?
>>>> For example, in "portage for non-Gentoo Linux" or "portage for
>>>> solaris" profiles.
>>>
>>> Actually, such a use flag is probably redundant. Isn't that what the
>>> the "macos" in "ppc-macos" is for?
>>
>> Well, thats part of the problem. As Darwin is not self-hosting
>> currently, it requires a highly modified OS X environment(read:
>> progressive profile) to built it, and the progressive profile  
>> shares the
>> same keyword, *-macos, with the collision-protected profile. Another
>> keyword isn't really feasible, I was thinking more along the lines  
>> of a
>> variable added to the use-expand list in the profiles.
>
> I just read http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82513
>
> What did happen to GLEP 22?
>
> I have to say, I find the idea of over-loading the collision- 
> protect hack
> with new macos-specific meaning inside N different ebuilds (by  
> FEATURES
> expansion) quite unpleasant.
>
> To my mind, progressive implies keyword=ppc-darwin/ppc-od, and "2nd  
> class"
> implies ppc-macos and that implies a prefix (substitute x86 or x64  
> for ppc
> as you see fit).
>
> I don't think it likely that apple will open source Mac OS X (or  
> eleven,
> or even system seven). I mean, is it likely that a macos profile could
> ever be anything but second fiddle?

The progressive profile already is, and getting moreso as it matures.  
fex it can/will be used to merge macos components from Apple  
installation media. So it is in fact handling the compilation of the  
'bsd' portion of OS X from source as well as managing the proprietary  
libs and tools like CoreAudio, XCode, etc. This way, packages can do  
things like "DEPEND='>=dev-util/xcode2.1 >=media-sound/coreaudio'"  
and so on. So used in this manner, portage is anything but a second  
class citizen as everything in / is in fact managed by portage.

Even once prefixed installs are available I intend to continue  
development in this area to facilitate extremely minimal OS X  
installs for specialized applications.

--Kito

>
> -f
>
>>
>>>
>>> I suspect the whole question goes away when portage gets  
>>> prefixes. So my
>>> post was probably just noise. Sorry.
>>>
>>> -f
>>> -- 
>>> gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
>>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
>

-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Finn Thain]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:

> >I don't think it likely that apple will open source Mac OS X (or 
> >eleven, or even system seven). I mean, is it likely that a macos 
> >profile could ever be anything but second fiddle?
> 
> The progressive profile already is, and getting moreso as it matures. 
> fex it can/will be used to merge macos components from Apple 
> installation media. So it is in fact handling the compilation of the 
> 'bsd' portion of OS X from source as well as managing the proprietary 
> libs and tools like CoreAudio, XCode, etc. This way, packages can do 
> things like "DEPEND='>=dev-util/xcode2.1
> >=media-sound/coreaudio'" and so on. So used in this manner, portage is
> anything but a second class citizen as everything in / is in fact 
> managed by portage.

What I'm saying is that you cannot build Mac OS X, Apple will not permit 
that. If you wan't to install X Code, you have to script apple's installer 
to do it. That is 2nd fiddle.

> Even once prefixed installs are available I intend to continue 
> development in this area to facilitate extremely minimal OS X installs 
> for specialized applications.

I applaud this. But I think calling that profile "macos" is a misnomer. 
That's why I suggested calling upstream darwin, "ppc-darwin". The fact 
that it isn't called macos doesn't imply macos and macos packages cannot 
be supported on it.

-f

> --Kito
> 
> >
> >-f
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >I suspect the whole question goes away when portage gets prefixes. So my
> > > >post was probably just noise. Sorry.
> > > >
> > > >-f
> > > >-- 
> > > >gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >-- 
> >gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
> >
> 
> 
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Kito]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Finn Thain wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:
>
>>> I don't think it likely that apple will open source Mac OS X (or
>>> eleven, or even system seven). I mean, is it likely that a macos
>>> profile could ever be anything but second fiddle?
>>
>> The progressive profile already is, and getting moreso as it matures.
>> fex it can/will be used to merge macos components from Apple
>> installation media. So it is in fact handling the compilation of the
>> 'bsd' portion of OS X from source as well as managing the proprietary
>> libs and tools like CoreAudio, XCode, etc. This way, packages can do
>> things like "DEPEND='>=dev-util/xcode2.1
>>> =media-sound/coreaudio'" and so on. So used in this manner,  
>>> portage is
>> anything but a second class citizen as everything in / is in fact
>> managed by portage.
>
> What I'm saying is that you cannot build Mac OS X, Apple will not  
> permit
> that. If you wan't to install X Code, you have to script apple's  
> installer
> to do it. That is 2nd fiddle.

Erm, no. It installs by extracting the files from the installation  
media similar to how other closed source software is installed via  
portage, doom, UTK2004, vmware, etc. Maybe we have different ideas of  
what 'second-fiddle' means. I interpret that as portage existing on a  
system with a specified set of fake deps in package.provided. IMHO  
portage is not second fiddle when it manages all files on the system.

>
>> Even once prefixed installs are available I intend to continue
>> development in this area to facilitate extremely minimal OS X  
>> installs
>> for specialized applications.
>
> I applaud this. But I think calling that profile "macos" is a  
> misnomer.

Where do you draw the line? If during a macos install I choose not to  
install all options available is it no longer macos proper? Macos to  
me implies CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua. Tons of other closed- 
source frameworks make up MacOS as well of course, but if you add  
CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua to a Darwin system, its macos IMHO.

> That's why I suggested calling upstream darwin, "ppc-darwin". The fact
> that it isn't called macos doesn't imply macos and macos packages  
> cannot
> be supported on it.

The default-darwin profile is just that, though not currently a valid  
profile with its own keyword, but all macos profiles inherit from  
that. If you have a Darwin system with the closed source macos libs  
installed, its no longer Darwin as it tends to all come back to the  
difference between CoreFoundation(macos) and CF-Lite(Darwin/ 
OpenDarwin). I think I see what you are saying, I just don't agree :p  
Anyway you look at it its all rather semantical, but needs to be  
addressed nonetheless.

Of course, when apple finally gets fed up with the warez kiddies  
running OS X on greybox crap and stops doing source releases, this  
will all become irrelevant anyway :p

>
> -f
>
>> --Kito
>>
>>>
>>> -f
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect the whole question goes away when portage gets  
>>>>> prefixes. So my
>>>>> post was probably just noise. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>> -f
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
>>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
>

-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Finn Thain]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:

> >On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:
> >
> >
> >What I'm saying is that you cannot build Mac OS X, Apple will not 
> >permit that. If you wan't to install X Code, you have to script apple's 
> >installer to do it. That is 2nd fiddle.
> 
> Erm, no. It installs by extracting the files from the installation media 
> similar to how other closed source software is installed via portage, 
> doom, UTK2004, vmware, etc. Maybe we have different ideas of what 
> 'second-fiddle' means. I interpret that as portage existing on a system 
> with a specified set of fake deps in package.provided. IMHO portage is 
> not second fiddle when it manages all files on the system.

Porage still has to answer to the macos installer, for two reasons:

- the macos installer will run around changing stuff without asking or 
  telling portage (unless you can build a system without that installer).

- most users don't want an OS X system without that installer (and 
  software update). I'm not saying portage can't do it all (down to 
  lipo-suctioning, creating Receipts files and all), I'm just saying that 
  portage doesn't need to. I'd also say that Gentoo devs have better 
  things to do than maintain tools to track a proprietary packaging 
  system.

IOW, I think it would be a mistake to try to upstage the soloist.

> > >Even once prefixed installs are available I intend to continue 
> > >development in this area to facilitate extremely minimal OS X 
> > >installs for specialized applications.
> >
> >I applaud this. But I think calling that profile "macos" is a misnomer.
> 
> Where do you draw the line? If during a macos install I choose not to 
> install all options available is it no longer macos proper? Macos to me 
> implies CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua. Tons of other closed-source 
> frameworks make up MacOS as well of course, but if you add 
> CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua to a Darwin system, its macos IMHO.

I didn't realise that you were unpacking the .pkgs without using 
/usr/sbin/installer. I can see why you would call such a profile macos.

However, if I wanted binary packages, I wouldn't choose Gentoo, and I 
don't think it makes a lot of sense to have a profile called macos that 
doesn't build macos from source.  This is, of course, impossible.

> >That's why I suggested calling upstream darwin, "ppc-darwin". The fact 
> >that it isn't called macos doesn't imply macos and macos packages 
> >cannot be supported on it.
> 
> The default-darwin profile is just that, though not currently a valid 
> profile with its own keyword, but all macos profiles inherit from that.
>
> If you have a Darwin system with the closed source macos libs installed, 
> its no longer Darwin as it tends to all come back to the difference 
> between CoreFoundation(macos) and CF-Lite(Darwin/OpenDarwin). I think I 
> see what you are saying, I just don't agree :p Anyway you look at it its 
> all rather semantical, but needs to be addressed nonetheless.

Yep.

Following your semantics, could "progressive" (ppc-macos) be likened to 
"2nd fiddle" (ppc-darwin), but without the prefix?

-f

> Of course, when apple finally gets fed up with the warez kiddies running 
> OS X on greybox crap and stops doing source releases, this will all 
> become irrelevant anyway :p
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Kito]

On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:09 PM, Finn Thain wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> What I'm saying is that you cannot build Mac OS X, Apple will not
>>> permit that. If you wan't to install X Code, you have to script  
>>> apple's
>>> installer to do it. That is 2nd fiddle.
>>
>> Erm, no. It installs by extracting the files from the installation  
>> media
>> similar to how other closed source software is installed via portage,
>> doom, UTK2004, vmware, etc. Maybe we have different ideas of what
>> 'second-fiddle' means. I interpret that as portage existing on a  
>> system
>> with a specified set of fake deps in package.provided. IMHO  
>> portage is
>> not second fiddle when it manages all files on the system.
>
> Porage still has to answer to the macos installer, for two reasons:
>
> - the macos installer will run around changing stuff without asking or
>   telling portage (unless you can build a system without that  
> installer).

You can install macos without using installer(8). It is also possible  
to manipulate installer(8) to install pkgs to non-boot volumes.

>
> - most users don't want an OS X system without that installer (and
>   software update).

Most users don't what anything beyond what a default OS X install  
gives them either...most users don't want portage either... there is  
no debate on whether this is a small niche or not.

> I'm not saying portage can't do it all (down to
>   lipo-suctioning, creating Receipts files and all), I'm just  
> saying that
>   portage doesn't need to. I'd also say that Gentoo devs have better
>   things to do than maintain tools to track a proprietary packaging
>   system.

Packages that portage handles don't need /Library/Receipts entries,  
portage has its own db of package info. I'm definitely not implying  
portage should/will be an installer(8) replacement. Its merely a  
method of splitting up some of the system files into smaller subsets  
than what Apple has provided in their install pkgs.

>
> IOW, I think it would be a mistake to try to upstage the soloist.
>
>>>> Even once prefixed installs are available I intend to continue
>>>> development in this area to facilitate extremely minimal OS X
>>>> installs for specialized applications.
>>>
>>> I applaud this. But I think calling that profile "macos" is a  
>>> misnomer.
>>
>> Where do you draw the line? If during a macos install I choose not to
>> install all options available is it no longer macos proper? Macos  
>> to me
>> implies CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua. Tons of other closed-source
>> frameworks make up MacOS as well of course, but if you add
>> CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua to a Darwin system, its macos IMHO.
>
> I didn't realise that you were unpacking the .pkgs without using
> /usr/sbin/installer. I can see why you would call such a profile  
> macos.
>
> However, if I wanted binary packages, I wouldn't choose Gentoo, and I
> don't think it makes a lot of sense to have a profile called macos  
> that
> doesn't build macos from source.  This is, of course, impossible.

Not sure I follow the logic there... This is what I have right now,  
'ROOT="/Volumes/Foobar" emerge system' compiles the opensource  
components of Darwin and installs the needed frameworks to give you a  
bootable, extremely minimal macos system with nothing more than whats  
required to give you a WindowServer instance, and a loginwindow...no  
iApps, no finder, no dock, no extraneous services, etc. etc.

Useful? Not for anyone but me at this point, but its worked very well  
for my purposes, which is having a dedicated DAW with a a very small  
footprint. Before portage, I always did this manually by fiddling  
with installer(8) and deleting all the extra stuff I didn't want....  
I find typing one command a lot more convenient. Down the road, I  
believe it would also be useful for things like Kiosk installations  
etc., but we'll see.

>
>>> That's why I suggested calling upstream darwin, "ppc-darwin". The  
>>> fact
>>> that it isn't called macos doesn't imply macos and macos packages
>>> cannot be supported on it.
>>
>> The default-darwin profile is just that, though not currently a valid
>> profile with its own keyword, but all macos profiles inherit from  
>> that.
>>
>> If you have a Darwin system with the closed source macos libs  
>> installed,
>> its no longer Darwin as it tends to all come back to the difference
>> between CoreFoundation(macos) and CF-Lite(Darwin/OpenDarwin). I  
>> think I
>> see what you are saying, I just don't agree :p Anyway you look at  
>> it its
>> all rather semantical, but needs to be addressed nonetheless.
>
> Yep.
>
> Following your semantics, could "progressive" (ppc-macos) be  
> likened to
> "2nd fiddle" (ppc-darwin), but without the prefix?
>
> -f
>
>> Of course, when apple finally gets fed up with the warez kiddies  
>> running
>> OS X on greybox crap and stops doing source releases, this will all
>> become irrelevant anyway :p
> -- 
> gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
>

-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] On keywording ppc-macos

[Finn Thain]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:

> 
> On Aug 24, 2005, at 12:09 PM, Finn Thain wrote:
> >
> >On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:
> >
> > > >On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Kito wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >What I'm saying is that you cannot build Mac OS X, Apple will not 
> > > >permit that. If you wan't to install X Code, you have to script 
> > > >apple's installer to do it. That is 2nd fiddle.
> > >
> > >Erm, no. It installs by extracting the files from the installation 
> > >media similar to how other closed source software is installed via 
> > >portage, doom, UTK2004, vmware, etc. Maybe we have different ideas of 
> > >what 'second-fiddle' means. I interpret that as portage existing on a 
> > >system with a specified set of fake deps in package.provided. IMHO 
> > >portage is not second fiddle when it manages all files on the system.
> >
> >Porage still has to answer to the macos installer, for two reasons:
> >
> >- the macos installer will run around changing stuff without asking or 
> >  telling portage (unless you can build a system without that 
> >  installer).
> 
> You can install macos without using installer(8). It is also possible to 
> manipulate installer(8) to install pkgs to non-boot volumes.

Yes, indeed you can (I use ditto(8)). What I'm saying is that it isn't 
desirable to do so. The only exception that I can see is installing the 
macos installer itself. Doing this is a nice idea, and I've wanted to do 
the same thing, but I don't see this as being within the scope of Gentoo 
or Gentoo/OS X.

BTW, to install enough of of macos to boostrap the macos installer doesn't 
require unpacking pkg files. Personally, (outside of the gentoo project) I 
would consider distributing a script that would tar up sufficient bits of 
macos. The tarball would then be used as a distfile on a Gentoo/Darwin 
system by an ebuild in an overlay.

> >
> >- most users don't want an OS X system without that installer (and 
> >  software update).
> 
> Most users don't what anything beyond what a default OS X install gives 
> them either...most users don't want portage either... there is no debate 
> on whether this is a small niche or not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that what you are doing is misguided, 
I'm just saying that it shouldn't be among the goals of Gentoo. (If it 
were, then any dev/volunteer might be expected to support it.)

I have said for a long time that _within_ the scope of the Gentoo/OS X 
project, Portage needs to be able to leverage installer(8) to install pkg 
files for packages that are closed source -- BUT only to provide deps for 
open source packages for which we have ebuilds (regardless of whether 
those ebuilds are XCode or configure/make).

> >  I'm not saying portage can't do it all (down to lipo-suctioning, 
> >  creating Receipts files and all), I'm just saying that portage 
> >  doesn't need to. I'd also say that Gentoo devs have better things to 
> >  do than maintain tools to track a proprietary packaging system.
> 
> Packages that portage handles don't need /Library/Receipts entries, 
> portage has its own db of package info. I'm definitely not implying 
> portage should/will be an installer(8) replacement.

In the application you described, portage has to be an installer 
replacement or else the macos you have created is not equivalent to 
apple's macos, which leaves us back at the "ppc-macos" semantic problem.

> Its merely a method of splitting up some of the system files into 
> smaller subsets than what Apple has provided in their install pkgs.
> >
> >IOW, I think it would be a mistake to try to upstage the soloist.
> >
> > > > >Even once prefixed installs are available I intend to continue 
> > > > >development in this area to facilitate extremely minimal OS X 
> > > > >installs for specialized applications.
> > > >
> > > >I applaud this. But I think calling that profile "macos" is a 
> > > >misnomer.
> > >
> > >Where do you draw the line? If during a macos install I choose not to 
> > >install all options available is it no longer macos proper? Macos to 
> > >me implies CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua. Tons of other 
> > >closed-source frameworks make up MacOS as well of course, but if you 
> > >add CoreFoundation, Quartz, and Aqua to a Darwin system, its macos 
> > >IMHO.
> >
> >I didn't realise that you were unpacking the .pkgs without using 
> >/usr/sbin/installer. I can see why you would call such a profile macos.
> >
> >However, if I wanted binary packages, I wouldn't choose Gentoo, and I 
> >don't think it makes a lot of sense to have a profile called macos that 
> >doesn't build macos from source.  This is, of course, impossible.
> 
> Not sure I follow the logic there... This is what I have right now, 
> 'ROOT="/Volumes/Foobar" emerge system' compiles the opensource 
> components of Darwin and installs the needed frameworks to give you a 
> bootable, extremely minimal macos system with nothing more than whats 
> required to give you a WindowServer instance, and a loginwindow...no 
> iApps, no finder, no dock, no extraneous services, etc. etc.

This is a fine hack, and I can see the benefits. But, I think it is out of 
scope of Gentoo in the sense that while portage should be flexible enough 
to accomodate this, the "portage for macos"/ppc-macos/2nd fiddle profile 
probably shouldn't have this among its official goals. The structuring of 
different profiles should have other considerations.

> Useful? Not for anyone but me at this point, but its worked very well 
> for my purposes, which is having a dedicated DAW with a a very small 
> footprint. Before portage, I always did this manually by fiddling with 
> installer(8) and deleting all the extra stuff I didn't want.... I find 
> typing one command a lot more convenient. Down the road, I believe it 
> would also be useful for things like Kiosk installations etc., but we'll 
> see.
> 
> >
> > > >That's why I suggested calling upstream darwin, "ppc-darwin". The 
> > > >fact that it isn't called macos doesn't imply macos and macos 
> > > >packages cannot be supported on it.

If you agree with my assertions about profiles and project scope above, 
does it not make sense to have "ppc-macos" mean those systems that can 
actually be called "Mac OS", i.e. Apple's one?

Surely an "upstream darwin" profile (ppc-darwin or x86-darwin) would be 
the best place to bootstrap a non-Apple psuedo-macos install, like the 
ones described above?

-f

> > >The default-darwin profile is just that, though not currently a valid 
> > >profile with its own keyword, but all macos profiles inherit from 
> > >that.
> > >
> > >If you have a Darwin system with the closed source macos libs 
> > >installed, its no longer Darwin as it tends to all come back to the 
> > >difference between CoreFoundation(macos) and 
> > >CF-Lite(Darwin/OpenDarwin). I think I see what you are saying, I just 
> > >don't agree :p Anyway you look at it its all rather semantical, but 
> > >needs to be addressed nonetheless.
> >
> >Yep.
> >
> >Following your semantics, could "progressive" (ppc-macos) be likened to 
> >"2nd fiddle" (ppc-darwin), but without the prefix?
> >
> >-f
> >
> > >Of course, when apple finally gets fed up with the warez kiddies 
> > >running OS X on greybox crap and stops doing source releases, this 
> > >will all become irrelevant anyway :p
> >-- gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
> >
> 
> 
-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list