On 2015-03-14 14:44, Clemens Lang wrote: > ----- On 14 Mar, 2015, at 02:04, Bradley Giesbrecht [email protected] > wrote: > >> Has there been a discussion about having the MacPorts buildbots also build >> mdmg >> files? >> >> This may require a lot of resources so perhaps mdmg could be run for some >> percentage of requested ports using mpstats?
Not all ports will work when installed as mdmg. The main problem would be that post-activate scripts are not converted to postflight scripts. There once was a dp_lite (DarwinPorts Lite) to extract a minimal runtime to be included in standalone installers. As we now ship Tcl with base, we probably even had to include a Tcl interpreter. Our code base is also not organized to isolate a few commands. As post-activate scripts might run any command, I guess we would end up with almost everything anyway... > What would be your use case for that? If you are looking for packages you can > install without installing MacPorts, I'd argue it's a bad idea to have our > buildbots generate those, because of the prefix conflict. Even when using a different prefix (ignoring all user confusion), this would give the wrong impression of being an officially supported method of installation. Users do not get any upgrade path with mdmg packages. Rainer _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
