On Jan 21, 2015, at 4:24 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Tuesday January 20 2015 19:25:11 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Why in fact deactivate and then activate anew? Isn't an untar of the
appropriate tarball enough?
It's never occurred to me before. I don't think the type of people who
Hi,
On 20/01/15 02:49, Craig Treleaven wrote:
At 8:20 PM + 1/19/15, Chris Jones wrote:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 7:13 pm, Craig Treleaven
ctrelea...@macports.org wrote:
At 3:11 PM + 1/19/15, Chris Jones wrote:
...
Does anyone else find it bizarre that, in 2015, we've got such an
On 20/01/15 02:37, Joshua Root wrote:
Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:34 AM, René J.V. Bertin rjvbertin at gmail.com wrote:
What could be an option:
- use xz instead of bzip2 to compact things a bit more
this would probably be a small change (I think there's support for gzip and
On 20 Jan 2015, at 03:49, Craig Treleaven ctrelea...@macports.org wrote:
Upgrade:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/OWC
I, for example, have a MacBook Air 6,2 with the PCIe SSD. No upgrade available.
:(
Vincent
___
macports-users mailing list
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Akim Demaille a...@lrde.epita.fr wrote:
Also, do people really use deactivate/activate offline?
Yes. I do.
(While I'm usually on a fast internet connection, sometimes the
connection is just as limited and expensive (3G) as hard disk
replacements for the first
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:12 AM, Akim Demaille a...@lrde.epita.fr wrote:
Also, do people really use deactivate/activate offline?
Yes, effectively; my local Internet connection is kinda crap at times. Also
I use it with ports that can't be packaged for licensing reasons, or
because of
Hi Ryan, Hi all,
Le 19 janv. 2015 à 11:07, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org a écrit :
On Jan 19, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
You're talking implementation details, I'm talking feature. And the
implementation is straightforward: rm -f /opt/local/macports/software/PORT
when
Le 20 janv. 2015 à 13:20, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com a écrit :
If you have a system with
say a SSD 128 GB drive, I do not think it is then unreasonable for that
user to ask why they have to lug around GBs of archives which, unless
you regular use the activate/deactivate feature
. And the
implementation is straightforward: rm -f
/opt/local/macports/software/PORT
when PORT was activated.
It's quite a lot more than just that. You're asking for a way for the user
to opt in to auto-removal of archives and opt out of the ability to use the
deactivate feature. MacPorts
On Tuesday January 20 2015 17:42:27 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Why in fact deactivate and then activate anew? Isn't an untar of the
appropriate tarball enough?
Granted, in the case that the user has installed such a third-party
installer, I actually recommend they completely uninstall MacPorts and
On Jan 20, 2015, at 2:12 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
Le 19 janv. 2015 à 11:07, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :
On Jan 19, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
You're talking implementation details, I'm talking feature. And the
implementation is straightforward: rm -f /opt/local/macports/software
On Jan 20, 2015, at 6:24 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Tuesday January 20 2015 17:42:27 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Why in fact deactivate and then activate anew? Isn't an untar of the
appropriate tarball enough?
That's true, but the MacPorts commant to untar the tarball is activate, and
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 7:24 PM, René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
Something related came up in another discussion I had today, which raised
the question how hard it would be to write a walker that 1) identifies
stray and/or trespassing files
Config files are not part of a port/package,
On Jan 19, 2015, at 9:49 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
Similarly, is there a way to disable the storing of the source files in
…/distfiles?
No [...]
Are there side-effects to cleaning out that directory manually, other than
re-downloading when needed?
It's largely fine. My housekeeping
On Monday January 19 2015 18:38:52 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Just to be clear: I do agree with this, and practice it myself. One of the
reasons MacPorts is not installed on my boot partition.
(heck, I'm old and pedantic enough to care about free space fragmentation
...)
Which is great
On Jan 19, 2015, at 5:34 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Monday January 19 2015 04:07:40 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
There are situations where MacPorts will advise you that an installation you
requested cannot proceed until you deactivate (or uninstall) a particular
port (the conflicts_build
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org
wrote:
- use xz instead of bzip2 to compact things a bit more
Whatever compression format is used needs to be supported without the use
of any port. OS X does not include support for dealing with xz files, which
is one
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
Just to be clear: I do agree with this, and practice it myself. One of
the reasons MacPorts is not installed on my boot partition. (heck, I'm
old and pedantic enough to care about free space fragmentation ...)
I'm glad to know that I'm not the
for the old way with hard links was
removed from MacPorts. There is no way to go back to that method, without
rewriting the code.
You're talking implementation details, I'm talking feature. And the
implementation is straightforward: rm -f /opt/local/macports/software/PORT
when PORT
When MS Office singlehandedly uses up all the drive on those tiny drives, I
cannot feel sorry that there's no room left for MacPorts--because there's
already no room left for anything before MacPorts even enters the picture.
On January 19, 2015 9:49:43 PM EST, Craig Treleaven
On Jan 19, 2015, at 7:15 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Monday January 19 2015 17:21:14 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Spotlight would find items in the /opt/local/var/macports/software
directory. So when you were trying to launch an application in
/Applications/MacPorts, it might find the copy in
On Monday January 19 2015 17:21:14 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Spotlight would find items in the /opt/local/var/macports/software directory.
So when you were trying to launch an application in /Applications/MacPorts,
it might find the copy in /opt/local/var/macports/software instead, which
might
Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:34 AM, René J.V. Bertin rjvbertin at gmail.com wrote:
What could be an option:
- use xz instead of bzip2 to compact things a bit more
this would probably be a small change (I think there's support for gzip and
zip already) - but changing your
On Monday January 19 2015 19:05:40 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
IMHO the argument is stupid. If you **need** those gigs then buy them. I
just bought 1T at $0.0089 / gig !!
Conserving disk space is a valid concern. Many Macs made in the past few
years have an internal SSD and do not have
On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:58 PM, James Linder wrote:
IMHO the argument is stupid. If you **need** those gigs then buy them. I just
bought 1T at $0.0089 / gig !!
Conserving disk space is a valid concern. Many Macs made in the past few years
have an internal SSD and do not have internal space
At 8:20 PM + 1/19/15, Chris Jones wrote:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 7:13 pm, Craig Treleaven
ctrelea...@macports.org wrote:
At 3:11 PM + 1/19/15, Chris Jones wrote:
...
Does anyone else find it bizarre that, in 2015, we've got such an
active thread about saving a few gigs of space?
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:31 PM, René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to be clear: I do agree with this, and practice it myself. One of the
reasons MacPorts is not installed on my boot partition.
(heck, I'm old and pedantic enough to care about free space fragmentation
...)
Which is
On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:31 PM, René J.V. wrote:
Just to be clear: I do agree with this, and practice it myself. One of the
reasons MacPorts is not installed on my boot partition.
(heck, I'm old and pedantic enough to care about free space
On Jan 19, 2015, at 7:31 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Monday January 19 2015 19:05:40 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
IMHO the argument is stupid. If you **need** those gigs then buy them. I
just bought 1T at $0.0089 / gig !!
Conserving disk space is a valid concern. Many Macs made in the past
there be something equivalent to state I don't want to
keep these files? I really mean something that would be
obeyed by post install and port upgrade. Something we
don't have to think about.
This is a pretty common wish. Just ask any search engine
about /opt/local/macports/software.
If you mean
these files? I really mean something that would be
obeyed by post install and port upgrade. Something we
don't have to think about.
This is a pretty common wish. Just ask any search engine
about /opt/local/macports/software.
Thanks.
___
macports
I agree with *both* Daniel and René.
On 20/01/2015, at 7:08 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Monday January 19 2015 14:35:19 Daniel J. Luke wrote:
I actually prefer doing `port upgrade outdated` make sure things are working
as I expect (and if not, quickly revert back with
Le 19 janv. 2015 à 10:34, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org a écrit :
Please Reply All so that the discussion stays on the mailing list.
Hmmm, I did.
Of note is that MacPorts used to not do this, or rather, using these archives
used to be optional, and not the default. Previously, the
On 19/01/15 09:34, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Please Reply All so that the discussion stays on the mailing list.
On Jan 19, 2015, at 3:26 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
Le 19 janv. 2015 à 09:27, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :
Hi Ryan,
If you mean /opt/local/var/macports/software, that's where the compressed
- On 19 Jan, 2015, at 15:40, Vincent Habchi vi...@macports.org wrote:
But I admit it is not very useful nowadays. It should be optional, at least
when
the version installed is the default one, i.e. the binary can be re-downloaded
verbatim from the server (not a bespoken version with
But I admit it is not very useful nowadays. It should be optional, at least when
the version installed is the default one, i.e. the binary can be re-downloaded
verbatim from the server (not a bespoken version with various variants set).
I disagree. I often use deactivation and activation, and
On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:34 AM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
What issues with SpotLight and/or Time Machine?
the best way to figure that out would probably be to look through the
macports-dev archives where the changes were discussed before they were
implemented.
Also note that
Salut Akim ! Hi Ryan!
I'm talking about removing the copy kept in that directory at the
end of the process.
I suppose this is a leftover from the time when Internet bandwidth was
unreliable and expensive, and it was well worth keeping a local copy than to
trust a flaky remote server or a
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:42 AM, Chris Jones jon...@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk
wrote:
It is correct that all others I am familiar with do not require the user
to effectively have two copies (albeit one compressed) on their system, the
installed one and the original install media (whether that be tar,
Clemens:
I disagree. I often use deactivation and activation, and I'd have to
re-download
the archive every time I did that, it would be a major hassle for me.
I agree. Of course, your mileage may vary. That’s why I think it’d mayhap be
worth investigating the possibility of having more
It is also correct that all other package systems you're familiar with
never have to build locally from source.
True, but I don't agree it completely negates the argument.
Possibly if you can get away with always operating in binary mode then
we could re-download missing archives from
- On 19 Jan, 2015, at 16:49, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
Similarly, is there a way to disable the storing of the source files in
…/distfiles?
No [...]
Are there side-effects to cleaning out that directory manually, other than
re-downloading when needed?
I'm not
Oops, not ‘bespoken’, ‘bespoke’.
‘it was well worth keeping a local copy RATHER than to trust a flaky remote
server or a rickety connexion.’
Who said I needed a proofreader? :)
V.
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
On Monday January 19 2015 09:34:51 Daniel J. Luke wrote:
being able to let TimeMachine back up my macports $prefix is nice, I wouldn't
want to not be able to do that because of a macports design decision.
Of course - but all of it? I exclude a good part of $prefix/var/macports,
because it's
Le 19 janv. 2015 à 09:27, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org a écrit :
Hi Ryan,
If you mean /opt/local/var/macports/software, that's where the compressed
archives of all your installed ports are stored. You are not meant to
interact with this directory manually. To remove an archive
back to that method, without rewriting
the code.
You're talking implementation details, I'm talking feature. And the
implementation is straightforward: rm -f /opt/local/macports/software/PORT
when PORT was activated.
Well, apt-get and the rest have no such equivalent. They just deploy
MacPorts. There is no way to go back to that method, without
rewriting the code.
You're talking implementation details, I'm talking feature. And the
implementation is straightforward: rm -f /opt/local/macports/software/PORT
when PORT was activated.
It's quite a lot more than just that. You're
Please Reply All so that the discussion stays on the mailing list.
On Jan 19, 2015, at 3:26 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
Le 19 janv. 2015 à 09:27, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :
Hi Ryan,
If you mean /opt/local/var/macports/software, that's where the compressed
archives of all your installed ports
On Jan 19, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
Le 19 janv. 2015 à 10:34, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :
Please Reply All so that the discussion stays on the mailing list.
Hmmm, I did.
Of note is that MacPorts used to not do this, or rather, using these
archives used to be optional, and
Le 19 janv. 2015 à 11:07, Ryan Schmidt ryandes...@macports.org a écrit :
On Jan 19, 2015, at 3:59 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
You're talking implementation details, I'm talking feature. And the
implementation is straightforward: rm -f /opt/local/macports/software/PORT
when PORT was activated
Hi,
- On 19 Jan, 2015, at 10:26, Akim Demaille a...@lrde.epita.fr wrote:
Well, I'm a grownup and willing to take these chances. I don't
play with activate/deactivate. I know of no other distros that
wastes that kind of disk space for that. That some wish to
use this feature, fine.
Well, I'm a grownup and willing to take these chances. I don't
play with activate/deactivate. I know of no other distros that
wastes that kind of disk space for that. That some wish to
use this feature, fine. But I need those gigs back.
Removing these files will very likely break your
On Jan 19, 2015, at 10:49 AM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday January 19 2015 09:34:51 Daniel J. Luke wrote:
being able to let TimeMachine back up my macports $prefix is nice, I
wouldn't want to not be able to do that because of a macports design
decision.
Of course
At 3:11 PM + 1/19/15, Chris Jones wrote:
...
Does anyone else find it bizarre that, in 2015, we've got such an
active thread about saving a few gigs of space?
If one has a too-small SSD, it seems more-than-a-little strange to
complain that building/installing a bunch of software
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Craig Treleaven ctrelea...@macports.org
wrote:
Does anyone else find it bizarre that, in 2015, we've got such an active
thread about saving a few gigs of space?
If one has a too-small SSD, it seems more-than-a-little strange to
complain that
On Monday January 19 2015 15:25:17 Brandon Allbery wrote:
/opt/local itself can't be safely symlinked because various things break
when it's not a real directory. Certain parts of things underneath it very
Like what? /opt/local has always been a symlink for me, and the only thing I'm
aware of
On Monday January 19 2015 15:58:08 Daniel J. Luke wrote:
it mostly works (port provides doesn't, for now),
(echo, echo, e c h o :))
One needs to set portdbpath in macports.conf to the 'real' path
Oh? I haven't, and I also don't see why it'd be required.
I think that for my 1st MacPorts
On Jan 19, 2015, at 4:14 PM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
One needs to set portdbpath in macports.conf to the 'real' path
Oh? I haven't, and I also don't see why it'd be required.
I was thinking of https://trac.macports.org/ticket/39850
There has been a time where this kind
- On 19 Jan, 2015, at 22:20, Daniel J. Luke dl...@geeklair.net wrote:
... but you're right, cal fixed it and it's been released (I though the fix
was
sitting on trunk still, but it made Macports 2.3.0)
I am currently not aware of any problems with /opt or /opt/local being a symlink
On Jan 19, 2015, at 4:43 PM, Clemens Lang c...@macports.org wrote:
- On 19 Jan, 2015, at 22:20, Daniel J. Luke dl...@geeklair.net wrote:
... but you're right, cal fixed it and it's been released (I though the fix
was
sitting on trunk still, but it made Macports 2.3.0)
I am currently
Le 19 janv. 2015 à 20:13, Craig Treleaven ctrelea...@macports.org a écrit :
At 3:11 PM + 1/19/15, Chris Jones wrote:
...
Does anyone else find it bizarre that, in 2015, we've got such an
active thread about saving a few gigs of space?
If one has a too-small SSD, it seems
On Monday January 19 2015 20:20:06 Chris Jones wrote:
If one has a too-small SSD, it seems more-than-a-little strange to complain
that building/installing a bunch of software packages consumes it. Get a
bigger drive. Or smaller expectations.
And how pray does one do that in a Mac
On Monday January 19 2015 20:20:06 Chris Jones wrote:
Nope. Saving disk space when not required is always a good idea.
Just to be clear: I do agree with this, and practice it myself. One of the
reasons MacPorts is not installed on my boot partition.
(heck, I'm old and pedantic enough to care
On Monday January 19 2015 14:35:19 Daniel J. Luke wrote:
personally, I have had to restore machines in places where connectivity was
problematic before - and I size things so I have more than enough backup
capacity to just back up everything and save myself the potential headaches
(lessons
On Monday January 19 2015 14:52:25 Brandon Allbery wrote:
On the other hand, I solved it by copying most of /opt/local/var/macports
onto an external USB drive and symlinking it back. Huge USB external drives
are ridiculously cheap these days.
I'm pretty sure I tried that, and got slapped on
Hi,
On 19 Jan 2015, at 7:13 pm, Craig Treleaven ctrelea...@macports.org wrote:
At 3:11 PM + 1/19/15, Chris Jones wrote:
...
Does anyone else find it bizarre that, in 2015, we've got such an active
thread about saving a few gigs of space?
Nope. Saving disk space when not required is
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:12 PM, René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, I solved it by copying most of /opt/local/var/macports
onto an external USB drive and symlinking it back. Huge USB external
drives
are ridiculously cheap these days.
I'm pretty sure I tried that, and
Hi,
On 19 Jan 2015, at 8:28 pm, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday January 19 2015 20:20:06 Chris Jones wrote:
If one has a too-small SSD, it seems more-than-a-little strange to complain
that building/installing a bunch of software packages consumes it. Get a
bigger
On 19 Jan 2015, at 20:13, Craig Treleaven ctrelea...@macports.org wrote:
If one has a too-small SSD, it seems more-than-a-little strange to complain
that building/installing a bunch of software packages consumes it. Get a
bigger drive. Or smaller expectations.
Personally, when I bought
My solution for having extra storage on a macbook is one of these
http://minidrive.bynifty.com http://minidrive.bynifty.com/
It has given me an extra 64G (of slow storage, but immediately available) for a
couple of years now. For $100US I am about to upgrade it to use a 128G micro SD.
Mike
(I
On Jan 19, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:12 PM, René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, I solved it by copying most of /opt/local/var/macports
onto an external USB drive and symlinking it back. Huge USB external
On Jan 19, 2015, at 3:08 PM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
Me too, though I wouldn't mind an automatic option that leaves say the 2
latest inactive versions, except for ports on an exclusion list.
Dream on :)
I would be willing to bet that something like that would be
72 matches
Mail list logo
