Citando Ryan Schmidt : > On Jan 21, 2009, at 02:35, Scott Haneda wrote: > >> I actually do not even understand why a port has to be made for >> anything in CPAN. I am sure the publish a list of all their modules, >> how come that list can not just exist in MacPorts, and we can simply >> issue something like `sudo port install cpan-foo::bar::baz and have >> MacPorts do the rest. >> >> For items that would not build right away, or if someone wants >> something tried, true, and tested, there could be a full port file. > > > I don't recall anyone having discussed such an idea before, so that's > probably one reason why it hasn't been done. We could have that > discussion now. >
There was an attempt at that: cpan2port [http://www.nabble.com/announce:-cpan2port-td20415884.html]. I don't know what is its current status, but that's a nice thing. If it was also possible to have this for python eggs, ruby gems, ctan, etc. However, debian has had such a tool for a long time, other package managers also have. Concerning the possibility to search for which port I should install to get which command, I usually try google with the name of the thing I want to get and "debian". It usually gives me the name of the debian package which is usually easily translatable into macports' naming. Once more however, debian, pkgsrc and probably other ones provide a way to search for the files provided by a package. In debian, as they make binary packages, it is "simple". In pkgsrc, it relies on their build in a sandbox which only uses the specified dependencies (not anything from /usr/local or /usr if it is not explicitly said in the Makefile) and hence builds exactly the same on machines with different things installed. Is macports bound to reinvent wheels over and over? Best, milosh
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
