Anders F Björklund wrote: > nox wrote: > >>> One reason could be to keep MacPorts fully "self-contained", >>> and to cut down on the amount of "outside" dependencies... ? >>> Currently there is a big grey zone of what's ok to use from >>> system (GCC, X11, etc) and what is not (Perl, Python, etc) > >> I really don't want to have to build or use a bootstrapped GCC, X11 >> and all to have a self-contained >> MacPorts installation. > > Right, and some people don't want to build or use a bootstrapped > Perl or Python or Ruby (or even Apache or MySQL or PHP packages) > > So it's all about trade-offs... But I agree with you, and the only > reason I could see for bootstrapping cctools/gcc or Xquartz would > be to make sure that it builds from the available open source code > instead of just using the binaries. Otherwise not worth the hassle.
Another factor (though I think we're just discussing philosphy, not immediate plans): Every port maintainer and core developer uses Xcode. We already see lots of problems when a package doesn't work on 10.5 because the port maintainer didn't upgrade - or when it stops working on 10.4 because he did. Adding a new build system, if it ever becomes a Good Idea, ought to be coupled with some type of continuous-integration "build farm" so that platform-specific bugs don't get (further) introduced. Jay Levitt _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
