Gregory Seidman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:21:59AM -0400, Scott Henson wrote: > } Gregory Seidman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > } > } > On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 10:59:07PM +0000, Alexander Solla wrote: > } > I wouldn't be quite automatic. Among other things, I would want > } > Debian-managed software to be outside the main tree (i.e. in /usr/local > } > or, better, in /sw or the like). I also wouldn't want or need much of > } > the software that is shipped with MacOS X, so there would have to be > } > equivs packages set up for all of that stuff. This includes things like > } > the X server, the compiler, etc. It would also be very interesting to > } > have two versions of anything Qt-based, since there is a MacOS-native > } > version of the Qt library (GPL'd as well as commercial). I don't think > } > any of this would require tremendous work, just an unofficial repository > } > to supply the modified and extra packages. > } > > } > } I don't know about this. That sounds a lot like what fink is doing. > [...] > > See my previous post on why Fink isn't good enough. Anyhow, I'm in favor > of a full Debian Darwin distribution. My intentions, however, are to use > it to make well-packaged software available on MacOS X. >
Yes, I would have to agree about Fink, Ive tried it myself and it is really very bad. I also must say that I don't think the two goals of a full port of Debian to Darwin and good well packaged software for MacOS are mutually exclusive. Check out the --root options to dpkg. I would think once one has Debian on Darwin one could easily port use the same binaries on MacOS and even use debootstrap to build the initial Debian install inside of /sw or wherever on your MacOS system and from then on tell apt or your tool of choice to pass the --root option to dpkg. It seem like it would be very easy, but maybe Im just make it more simple than it actually is. -- Scott Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
