[gentoo-osx] porting maxos port to posix (ala openpkg)

[gentoo-osx] porting maxos port to posix (ala openpkg)

[m h]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1545 bytes --]

Hello-

I posted in the gentoo-dev mailing list yesterday, but figured I'd post here 
since it is somewhat closer related. I'm investigating the differences 
between portage and openpkg. For those who don't know about openpkg, openpkg 
allows one to install rpms in a sandboxed environment accross multiple unix 
platforms (bsd, redhat, debian, gentoo,...). It consists of a way to 
bootstrap an environment and a bunch of spec files used to create rpms 
specifically tailored for that platform. The idea being you could run the 
"same" components across different platforms in your environment.

It seems that Fink and Portage for OSX are providing similar functionality 
on top of OSX. My question is what would be involved in generalizing the 
Portage OSX port to unix platforms similar to what openpkg is doing. An 
example might be that while I need to run Suse at work, I could install 
portage into a sandboxed location and enter that environment. This would 
allow me to run newer components, better integrated, security patched, etc, 
while still having the corporate environment if I needed it.

Ideally the benefits for doing this would be to allow many platforms to take 
advantage of portage, use the large ebuild tree (openpkg has ~400 
components), as well as use ebuilds that are tested probably a little bit 
more than openpkg (I believe the gentoo install base is a least one or two 
orders of magnitude larger than openpkg).

Any thoughts, comments, or suggestions are appreciated.

thanks

matt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1634 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-osx] porting maxos port to posix (ala openpkg)

[Grobian]

Hi,

As far as I know, this path is envisioned but since I needs some large 
investments, there is not much to tell about when this is to come.  It 
is in the line of development, however.

To give you another 302, you might look around in the gentoo-portage 
list, because there this idea will be cooked.  We OSXers will probably 
be the first ones to consume (use) it.

Maybe this helps a bit


m h wrote:
> Hello-
> 
> I posted in the gentoo-dev mailing list yesterday, but figured I'd post 
> here since it is somewhat closer related.  I'm investigating the 
> differences between portage and openpkg.  For those who don't know about 
> openpkg, openpkg allows one to install rpms in a sandboxed environment 
> accross multiple unix platforms (bsd, redhat, debian, gentoo,...).  It 
> consists of a way to bootstrap an environment and a bunch of spec files 
> used to create rpms specifically tailored for that platform.  The idea 
> being you could run the "same" components across different platforms in 
> your environment.
> 
> It seems that Fink and Portage for OSX are providing similar 
> functionality on top of OSX.  My question is what would be involved in 
> generalizing the Portage OSX port to unix platforms similar to what 
> openpkg is doing.  An example might be that while I need to run Suse at 
> work, I could install portage into a sandboxed location and enter that 
> environment.  This would allow me to run newer components, better 
> integrated, security patched, etc, while still having the corporate 
> environment if I needed it.
> 
> Ideally the benefits for doing this would be to allow many platforms to 
> take advantage of portage, use the large ebuild tree (openpkg has ~400 
> components), as well as use ebuilds that are tested probably a little 
> bit more than openpkg (I believe the gentoo install base is a least one 
> or two orders of magnitude larger than openpkg).
> 
> Any thoughts, comments, or suggestions are appreciated.
> 
> thanks
> 
> matt

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

Re: [gentoo-osx] porting maxos port to posix (ala openpkg)

[m h]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2985 bytes --]

Thanks for the reply Grobian.


As far as I know, this path is envisioned but since I needs some large
> investments, there is not much to tell about when this is to come. It
> is in the line of development, however.
> 
> To give you another 302, you might look around in the gentoo-portage
> list, because there this idea will be cooked. We OSXers will probably
> be the first ones to consume (use) it.


Yes, I have posted there yesterday, got redirected here, browsed around the 
archives of osx and found some links back to dev "new glep draft: Portage as 
a secondary package manager" (posted in may). This is what I want, and 
wasn't sure if osx was pushing for this or the main portage devs were 
driving this initiative (if anyone is).

According to you it would be developed in the main line, and osx will use 
it, rather than osx developing it and pushing it back? I'm looking to get 
some direction in this as I have a week or so to see if I can do anything 
viable in that time, but would like some direction (am proficient in bash 
and python but I'm not a portage developer just a longtime satisfied gentoo 
consumer ;) ).

Maybe this helps a bit


Every little bit helps. 

m h wrote:
> > Hello-
> >
> > I posted in the gentoo-dev mailing list yesterday, but figured I'd post
> > here since it is somewhat closer related. I'm investigating the
> > differences between portage and openpkg. For those who don't know about
> > openpkg, openpkg allows one to install rpms in a sandboxed environment
> > accross multiple unix platforms (bsd, redhat, debian, gentoo,...). It
> > consists of a way to bootstrap an environment and a bunch of spec files
> > used to create rpms specifically tailored for that platform. The idea
> > being you could run the "same" components across different platforms in
> > your environment.
> >
> > It seems that Fink and Portage for OSX are providing similar
> > functionality on top of OSX. My question is what would be involved in
> > generalizing the Portage OSX port to unix platforms similar to what
> > openpkg is doing. An example might be that while I need to run Suse at
> > work, I could install portage into a sandboxed location and enter that
> > environment. This would allow me to run newer components, better
> > integrated, security patched, etc, while still having the corporate
> > environment if I needed it.
> >
> > Ideally the benefits for doing this would be to allow many platforms to
> > take advantage of portage, use the large ebuild tree (openpkg has ~400
> > components), as well as use ebuilds that are tested probably a little
> > bit more than openpkg (I believe the gentoo install base is a least one
> > or two orders of magnitude larger than openpkg).
> >
> > Any thoughts, comments, or suggestions are appreciated.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > matt
> 
> --
> Fabian Groffen
> Gentoo for Mac OS X
> --
> gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3793 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-osx] porting maxos port to posix (ala openpkg)

[Nick Dimiduk]

To re-direct you one more time, maybe have a look over at the 
gentoo-portage-dev list.  That's where portage development happens.  We 
just use it. :)

We are in the process of making gentoo's portage work on osx as a 
secondary package manager (as you put it earlier).  We ideally use / as 
the root.  Much of what we've push into portage mainline (as bug 
reports) has to do with using POSIX versions of tools rather than the 
gnu versions.  This has to do with portage code as well as ebuilds 
themselves.  the gentoo/bsd group also does this with their work.  Both 
of our projects are focused on getting portage running on non-linux 
systems.  There was talk of gentoo/open solaris as well.

I don't think I fully understand what you're looking for, but I hope you 
find it :)

Cheers,
-Nick Dimiduk

m h wrote:
> Hello-
> 
> I posted in the gentoo-dev mailing list yesterday, but figured I'd post 
> here since it is somewhat closer related.  I'm investigating the 
> differences between portage and openpkg.  For those who don't know about 
> openpkg, openpkg allows one to install rpms in a sandboxed environment 
> accross multiple unix platforms (bsd, redhat, debian, gentoo,...).  It 
> consists of a way to bootstrap an environment and a bunch of spec files 
> used to create rpms specifically tailored for that platform.  The idea 
> being you could run the "same" components across different platforms in 
> your environment.
> 
> It seems that Fink and Portage for OSX are providing similar 
> functionality on top of OSX.  My question is what would be involved in 
> generalizing the Portage OSX port to unix platforms similar to what 
> openpkg is doing.  An example might be that while I need to run Suse at 
> work, I could install portage into a sandboxed location and enter that 
> environment.  This would allow me to run newer components, better 
> integrated, security patched, etc, while still having the corporate 
> environment if I needed it.
> 
> Ideally the benefits for doing this would be to allow many platforms to 
> take advantage of portage, use the large ebuild tree (openpkg has ~400 
> components), as well as use ebuilds that are tested probably a little 
> bit more than openpkg (I believe the gentoo install base is a least one 
> or two orders of magnitude larger than openpkg).
> 
> Any thoughts, comments, or suggestions are appreciated.
> 
> thanks
> 
> matt

-- 
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-osx] porting maxos port to posix (ala openpkg)

[m h]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3327 bytes --]

On 9/8/05, Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> To re-direct you one more time, maybe have a look over at the
> gentoo-portage-dev list. That's where portage development happens. We
> just use it. :)



Nick-

Thanks for the redirection. I'll spam them as well. 

We are in the process of making gentoo's portage work on osx as a
> secondary package manager (as you put it earlier). We ideally use / as
> the root. Much of what we've push into portage mainline (as bug
> reports) has to do with using POSIX versions of tools rather than the
> gnu versions. This has to do with portage code as well as ebuilds
> themselves. the gentoo/bsd group also does this with their work. Both
> of our projects are focused on getting portage running on non-linux
> systems. There was talk of gentoo/open solaris as well.
> 
> I don't think I fully understand what you're looking for, but I hope you
> find it :)


Here's what I want: If you are familiar with openpkg, I want a portage 
version of that rather than an rpm version.
If you aren't familiar with that I want a "prefixed" version of portage 
(much like how fink is in it's own directory) that will run ontop of other 
unices (solaris, osx, linux variants).
Here's the thread that contains a GLEP explaining "portage as a secondary 
package manager".
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/27569

Hopefully that makes sense. I hope this doesn't appear to be rude, I just 
want to make sure people understand what I'm asking for, so that we are all 
on the same page ;)

Cheers,
> -Nick Dimiduk
> 
> m h wrote:
> > Hello-
> >
> > I posted in the gentoo-dev mailing list yesterday, but figured I'd post
> > here since it is somewhat closer related. I'm investigating the
> > differences between portage and openpkg. For those who don't know about
> > openpkg, openpkg allows one to install rpms in a sandboxed environment
> > accross multiple unix platforms (bsd, redhat, debian, gentoo,...). It
> > consists of a way to bootstrap an environment and a bunch of spec files
> > used to create rpms specifically tailored for that platform. The idea
> > being you could run the "same" components across different platforms in
> > your environment.
> >
> > It seems that Fink and Portage for OSX are providing similar
> > functionality on top of OSX. My question is what would be involved in
> > generalizing the Portage OSX port to unix platforms similar to what
> > openpkg is doing. An example might be that while I need to run Suse at
> > work, I could install portage into a sandboxed location and enter that
> > environment. This would allow me to run newer components, better
> > integrated, security patched, etc, while still having the corporate
> > environment if I needed it.
> >
> > Ideally the benefits for doing this would be to allow many platforms to
> > take advantage of portage, use the large ebuild tree (openpkg has ~400
> > components), as well as use ebuilds that are tested probably a little
> > bit more than openpkg (I believe the gentoo install base is a least one
> > or two orders of magnitude larger than openpkg).
> >
> > Any thoughts, comments, or suggestions are appreciated.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > matt
> 
> --
> gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4400 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-osx] porting maxos port to posix (ala openpkg)

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 991 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:24:46PM -0400, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> To re-direct you one more time, maybe have a look over at the 
> gentoo-portage-dev list.  That's where portage development happens.  We 
> just use it. :)
> 
> We are in the process of making gentoo's portage work on osx as a 
> secondary package manager (as you put it earlier).  We ideally use / as 
> the root.  Much of what we've push into portage mainline (as bug 
> reports) has to do with using POSIX versions of tools rather than the 
> gnu versions.  This has to do with portage code as well as ebuilds 
> themselves.  the gentoo/bsd group also does this with their work.  Both 
> of our projects are focused on getting portage running on non-linux 
> systems.  There was talk of gentoo/open solaris as well.
> 
> I don't think I fully understand what you're looking for, but I hope you 
> find it :)
openpkg is capable of prefix swiveling, what y'all are after- also is 
what he's after.
~harring

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