Le 30 mai 09 à 17:40, Rainer Müller a écrit :
On 2009-05-30 17:12, Thomas De Contes wrote:
[...]
... i don't understand why you prefer (1) for MacPorts itself
since Ryan Schmidt uses (2) for ports, i don't see what kind of
avantage you get using (1) for MacPorts itself
It allows to build base with another compiler and it makes it more
portable.
i fully understand Ryan's choice, and finally I agree with him
what aren't you agreement in what he said with ?
As I explained in my previous mail ...
and anyway, i find that it's better to have MacPorts homogeneous,
between itself and its ports, don't you think ?
... I still see no reason to restrict building MacPorts itself to a
specific compiler. Users building MacPorts from source are expected to
know what they are doing.
ah, ok,
i just understand why what Ryan Schmidt says about ports is not
applicable to MacPorts itself ...
basic users are expected to compile ports but not MacPorts itself,
they are expected to install binaries of MacPorts itself :-)
sorry, i forgot it :-)
Having MacPorts installation with a different prefix in PATH during
configure might fail anyway if certain ports are installed (e.g. tcl).
Therefore, use a clean environment with the system's default PATH
if you
don't want to use MacPorts for that.
well, i need to compile MacPorts because i don't want to give it root
rights
it's not very constraining,
just, sometimes i have tinny problems, and in general there is a
solution :-)
but it may be very annoying, if the installation of some ports avoids
to rebuild MacPorts :-(
is there a simple way to use the system's default PATH, just for the
time to build MacPorts ?
(note that i don't ask that it would be the defaut, so developers who
want to make any kind of tests with MacPorts are able to continue
it :-) )
--
Téléassistance / Télémaintenance
http://www.portparallele.com/ThomasDECONTES/
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
