Re: Desolate Condition

[Andrew Janke]

On 1/26/21 9:41 PM, Craig Treleaven wrote:
> I have used MacPorts to package a substantial application (MythTV).  As an 
> overview, MythTV and all its dependencies were installed to a custom prefix 
> (/opt/dvr)*.  A couple of helper apps (Applescripts, if you want the full 
> truth) are the only things installed under /Applications/MacPorts/MythTV.  
> The package installer recreates this layout on the destination machine.  I 
> don’t see why you couldn’t continue with your current layout, however.
>
> MacPorts provides support to create a standard package installer (port mpkg) 
> or dmg (port mdmg).  See man port-mpkg for the basics.  If it helps, I wrote 
> a wiki page with a few of the issues that I encountered:
>
> https://trac.macports.org/wiki/howto/CreateInstallers

Cool, thanks! I think this will be helpful.

> Ping me if you have questions.
>
> Craig
> * In a custom prefix, _everything_ has to be built from source.  The initial 
> build will take a _long_ time.  A very long time.

Ohh, I'm used to that. As a packager I'm okay with eating that build time.

Cheers,
Andrew

Re: Desolate Condition

[Craig Treleaven]

> On Jan 26, 2021, at 9:13 PM, Andrew Janke  wrote:
> 
> Possibly relevant: I'm co-maintainer of Octave.app, a "native" Mac app
> distribution of GNU Octave (https://octave-app.org/). It's currently
> built on top of Homebrew.
> 
> I'm tentatively planning on migrating Octave.app to be built on top of
> MacPorts in the near future. Partially because I think MacPorts is a
> more stable, configurable, "pro" tool more suitable to building
> redistributable apps (which is explicitly not supported by Homebrew),
> but mostly because I refuse to upgrade from macOS 10.14 (because I'm an
> Aperture user) and Homebrew's going to drop support for 10.14.
> 
> The way this thing works is that I set up a whole Homebrew installation
> under a custom prefix at "/Applications/Octave-.app" and then
> wrap that up as an app bundle.
> 
> Do y'all have any advice for me?
> 
> If this transition happens, a "Powered by MacPorts!" banner goes on the
> bottom of our website. I have absolutely no clue how many users we have,
> but I know that at least a couple hundred European college students
> along with some scientists in the US are using it.

I have used MacPorts to package a substantial application (MythTV).  As an 
overview, MythTV and all its dependencies were installed to a custom prefix 
(/opt/dvr)*.  A couple of helper apps (Applescripts, if you want the full 
truth) are the only things installed under /Applications/MacPorts/MythTV.  The 
package installer recreates this layout on the destination machine.  I don’t 
see why you couldn’t continue with your current layout, however.

MacPorts provides support to create a standard package installer (port mpkg) or 
dmg (port mdmg).  See man port-mpkg for the basics.  If it helps, I wrote a 
wiki page with a few of the issues that I encountered:

https://trac.macports.org/wiki/howto/CreateInstallers

Ping me if you have questions.

Craig
* In a custom prefix, _everything_ has to be built from source.  The initial 
build will take a _long_ time.  A very long time.

Re: Desolate Condition

[Andrew Janke]

On 1/26/21 3:50 PM, Nils Breunese wrote:
> Christopher Nielsen  wrote:
>
>> One advantage that HomeBrew does have, though, is cachet: There are so many 
>> times when articles - or even organizations, such as Google - simply 
>> recommend using HomeBrew… with no mention of MacPorts.
> I think it’s a great idea to always send pull requests to update upstream 
> docs and readme files with installation instructions for MacPorts when you 
> start maintaining a port. So, to all maintainers: take a look at the ports 
> you maintain and whether the upstream docs and readme have installation 
> instructions for MacPorts.
>
> Nils.

Possibly relevant: I'm co-maintainer of Octave.app, a "native" Mac app
distribution of GNU Octave (https://octave-app.org/). It's currently
built on top of Homebrew.

I'm tentatively planning on migrating Octave.app to be built on top of
MacPorts in the near future. Partially because I think MacPorts is a
more stable, configurable, "pro" tool more suitable to building
redistributable apps (which is explicitly not supported by Homebrew),
but mostly because I refuse to upgrade from macOS 10.14 (because I'm an
Aperture user) and Homebrew's going to drop support for 10.14.

The way this thing works is that I set up a whole Homebrew installation
under a custom prefix at "/Applications/Octave-.app" and then
wrap that up as an app bundle.

Do y'all have any advice for me?

If this transition happens, a "Powered by MacPorts!" banner goes on the
bottom of our website. I have absolutely no clue how many users we have,
but I know that at least a couple hundred European college students
along with some scientists in the US are using it.

Cheers,
Andrew

Re: Desolate Condition

[Eric Borisch]

FWIW (on FreeBSD; apologies for semi-off-topic; I won't continue any
further discussion on-list):

If you want more frequent pkg updates, create the file
/usr/local/etc/pkg/repos/FreeBSD.conf with contents:

FreeBSD: {
  url: "pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/${ABI}/latest;
}

This will switch you (with a 'pkg update -f') from "quarterly" to
"latest". See also: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Ports/QuarterlyBranch for
rationale behind each.

I also find ports-mgmt/synth to be fantastic for maintaining a mix of
pre-built (downloaded compiled) and customized (non-standard-option)
packages. This is similar to how MacPorts will download (as permitted)
pre-compiled ports with standard variants, but build locally for
non-standard variants.

  - Eric


On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 9:55 AM Marius Schamschula
 wrote:
>
> Andrew,
>
> MacPorts provides pre-built packages for more macOS versions than Homebrew.
>
> However, MacPorts is very careful not to provide packages where the upstream 
> license prohibits us from doing so.
>
> Other pre-built packages are not provided if they depend on said packages to 
> be build by our buildbots.
>
> Installing on my Mac using MacPorts is much faster than on my servers under 
> FreeBSD where everything literally has to be build locally, as pre-built 
> packages may be up three months out of date.
>
> On Jan 26, 2021, at 9:40 AM, Andrew Janke  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/26/21 10:12 AM, Christopher Nielsen wrote:
>
> Ken Cunningham wrote:
>
> homebrew is in shambles.
>
> their long-touted "no-sudo" and "no PATH" advantage from installing into 
> /usr/local has been eliminated by Apple as the horrible security threat it 
> always was. They have to retool into /opt/homebrew and make 10,000 builds 
> respect the build args now.
>
> They stripped out all their universal handling code a few years ago, can't 
> put it back, and so can't do the critical universal builds any more. They 
> tell everyone universal is wasteful, lipo things manually, and run the x86_64 
> homebrew on Apple Silicon.
>
> So MacPorts, which works great from 10.4 PPC to 11.x arm64, is the place to 
> be.
>
>
> Personnally, I’ve never actually tried HomeBrew, as I didn’t want anything 
> installed into core OS areas. And after choosing  MacPorts years ago - 10+ at 
> this point? - I’ve always been very happy with the experience. Enough so that 
> I’m finally giving back, as a contributor!
>
> One advantage that HomeBrew does have, though, is cachet: There are so many 
> times when articles - or even organizations, such as Google - simply 
> recommend using HomeBrew… with no mention of MacPorts.
>
> So, my feeling is that we need to up our public relations game. Do we have an 
> active social media presence, for example? (Twitter in particular?)
>
> Of note, while I’m not an expert in social media relations, I’d happily 
> volunteer to help with it.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Hi! Long-time user of both Homebrew and MacPorts here; former Homebrew 
> maintainer.
>
> It's definitely a PR issue; Homebrew is winning on that front.
>
> IMHO, the other thing is that Homebrew is fun to use and accessible to 
> less-technical users. Friendlier command output, low-jargon documentation, 
> sense of humor, fun emojis. MacPorts feels like more of a "pro" thing and 
> serious sysadmin tool, and its command output can be kind of technical and 
> intimidating. I think the Homebrew approach is attractive to a lot of general 
> Mac users, especially those approaching a package manager for the first time.
>
> Another big thing is that Homebrew ships binaries for everything, so you can 
> do a full Homebrew install of a big toolchain in just a few minutes, where it 
> might take hours to compile. MacPorts still builds everything from source, 
> right?
>
> Those are the reasons I always recommend Homebrew to new Mac package manager 
> users, even though I think both are good tools.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew
>
>

Re: Desolate Condition

[Nils Breunese]

Christopher Nielsen  wrote:

> One advantage that HomeBrew does have, though, is cachet: There are so many 
> times when articles - or even organizations, such as Google - simply 
> recommend using HomeBrew… with no mention of MacPorts.

I think it’s a great idea to always send pull requests to update upstream docs 
and readme files with installation instructions for MacPorts when you start 
maintaining a port. So, to all maintainers: take a look at the ports you 
maintain and whether the upstream docs and readme have installation 
instructions for MacPorts.

Nils.

Re: Desolate Condition

[Jason Liu]

>
> One advantage that HomeBrew does have, though, is cachet: There are so
> many times when articles - or even organizations, such as Google - simply
> recommend using HomeBrew… with no mention of MacPorts.
>
> So, my feeling is that we need to up our public relations game. Do we have
> an active social media presence, for example? (Twitter in particular?)
>
> Of note, while I’m not an expert in social media relations, I’d happily
> volunteer to help with it.
>
> Thoughts?
>

I completely agree with this point. Due to MacPorts' low social media
visibility, and thus low mind share in this day and age, it seems that lots
of people, even including software authors, don't seem to consider MacPorts
as a viable (or at the very least, a mainstream) method of obtaining
software. I see plenty of open source projects have a blurb on their
websites saying " is available through Homebrew using 'brew
install --cask '", but I never see an equivalent blurb for
MacPorts these days.

I also agree with Andrew Janke's point that "MacPorts feels like more of a
"pro" thing and serious sysadmin tool, and its command output can be kind
of technical and intimidating." MacPorts essentially adds a *nix-style
package management system onto a Mac, and these *nix PMSes are also
(in)famous for feeling technical and intimidating. Perhaps a GUI like
Pallet would help in this regard? There seems to be much higher comfort
levels with GUI-based "app stores", even among non-technical users.

-- 
Jason Liu


On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:12 AM Christopher Nielsen <
masc...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>
> *Ken Cunningham wrote:*
> homebrew is in shambles.
>
> their long-touted "no-sudo" and "no PATH" advantage from installing into
> /usr/local has been eliminated by Apple as the horrible security threat it
> always was. They have to retool into /opt/homebrew and make 10,000 builds
> respect the build args now.
>
> They stripped out all their universal handling code a few years ago, can't
> put it back, and so can't do the critical universal builds any more. They
> tell everyone universal is wasteful, lipo things manually, and run the
> x86_64 homebrew on Apple Silicon.
>
> So MacPorts, which works great from 10.4 PPC to 11.x arm64, is the place
> to be.
>
>
> Personnally, I’ve never actually tried HomeBrew, as I didn’t want anything
> installed into core OS areas. And after choosing  MacPorts years ago - 10+
> at this point? - I’ve always been very happy with the experience. Enough so
> that I’m finally giving back, as a contributor!
>
> One advantage that HomeBrew does have, though, is cachet: There are so
> many times when articles - or even organizations, such as Google - simply
> recommend using HomeBrew… with no mention of MacPorts.
>
> So, my feeling is that we need to up our public relations game. Do we have
> an active social media presence, for example? (Twitter in particular?)
>
> Of note, while I’m not an expert in social media relations, I’d happily
> volunteer to help with it.
>
> Thoughts?
>

Re: Desolate Condition

[Joshua Root]

On 2021-1-27 02:57 , Andrew Janke wrote:
I didn't know that! I must be behind the times with the state of 
MacPorts. Thanks for the update.


About a decade behind -- the buildbot went live in 2011. ;)

- Josh

Re: Desolate Condition

[Andrew Janke]

I didn't know that! I must be behind the times with the state of
MacPorts. Thanks for the update.

Cheers,
Andrew

On 1/26/21 10:54 AM, Marius Schamschula wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> MacPorts provides pre-built packages for more macOS versions than
> Homebrew.
>
> However, MacPorts is very careful not to provide packages where the
> upstream license prohibits us from doing so.
>
> Other pre-built packages are not provided if they depend on said
> packages to be build by our buildbots.
>
> Installing on my Mac using MacPorts is much faster than on my servers
> under FreeBSD where everything literally has to be build locally, as
> pre-built packages may be up three months out of date.
>
>> On Jan 26, 2021, at 9:40 AM, Andrew Janke > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/26/21 10:12 AM, Christopher Nielsen wrote:
 /Ken Cunningham wrote:
 /
 homebrew is in shambles.

 their long-touted "no-sudo" and "no PATH" advantage from installing
 into /usr/local has been eliminated by Apple as the horrible
 security threat it always was. They have to retool into
 /opt/homebrew and make 10,000 builds respect the build args now.

 They stripped out all their universal handling code a few years
 ago, can't put it back, and so can't do the critical universal
 builds any more. They tell everyone universal is wasteful, lipo
 things manually, and run the x86_64 homebrew on Apple Silicon.

 So MacPorts, which works great from 10.4 PPC to 11.x arm64, is the
 place to be.
>>>
>>> Personnally, I’ve never actually tried HomeBrew, as I didn’t want
>>> anything installed into core OS areas. And after choosing  MacPorts
>>> years ago - 10+ at this point? - I’ve always been very happy with
>>> the experience. Enough so that I’m finally giving back, as a
>>> contributor!
>>>
>>> One advantage that HomeBrew does have, though, is cachet: There are
>>> so many times when articles - or even organizations, such as Google
>>> - simply recommend using HomeBrew… with no mention of MacPorts.
>>>
>>> So, my feeling is that we need to up our public relations game. Do
>>> we have an active social media presence, for example? (Twitter in
>>> particular?)
>>>
>>> Of note, while I’m not an expert in social media relations, I’d
>>> happily volunteer to help with it.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Hi! Long-time user of both Homebrew and MacPorts here; former
>> Homebrew maintainer.
>>
>> It's definitely a PR issue; Homebrew is winning on that front.
>>
>> IMHO, the other thing is that Homebrew is /fun/ to use and accessible
>> to less-technical users. Friendlier command output, low-jargon
>> documentation, sense of humor, fun emojis. MacPorts feels like more
>> of a "pro" thing and serious sysadmin tool, and its command output
>> can be kind of technical and intimidating. I think the Homebrew
>> approach is attractive to a lot of general Mac users, especially
>> those approaching a package manager for the first time.
>>
>> Another big thing is that Homebrew ships binaries for everything, so
>> you can do a full Homebrew install of a big toolchain in just a few
>> minutes, where it might take hours to compile. MacPorts still builds
>> everything from source, right?
>>
>> Those are the reasons I always recommend Homebrew to new Mac package
>> manager users, even though I think both are good tools.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andrew
>

Re: Desolate Condition

[Marius Schamschula]

Andrew,

MacPorts provides pre-built packages for more macOS versions than Homebrew.

However, MacPorts is very careful not to provide packages where the upstream 
license prohibits us from doing so.

Other pre-built packages are not provided if they depend on said packages to be 
build by our buildbots.

Installing on my Mac using MacPorts is much faster than on my servers under 
FreeBSD where everything literally has to be build locally, as pre-built 
packages may be up three months out of date.

> On Jan 26, 2021, at 9:40 AM, Andrew Janke  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/26/21 10:12 AM, Christopher Nielsen wrote:
>>> Ken Cunningham wrote:
>>> 
>>> homebrew is in shambles.
>>> 
>>> their long-touted "no-sudo" and "no PATH" advantage from installing into 
>>> /usr/local has been eliminated by Apple as the horrible security threat it 
>>> always was. They have to retool into /opt/homebrew and make 10,000 builds 
>>> respect the build args now.
>>> 
>>> They stripped out all their universal handling code a few years ago, can't 
>>> put it back, and so can't do the critical universal builds any more. They 
>>> tell everyone universal is wasteful, lipo things manually, and run the 
>>> x86_64 homebrew on Apple Silicon.
>>> 
>>> So MacPorts, which works great from 10.4 PPC to 11.x arm64, is the place to 
>>> be.
>> 
>> Personnally, I’ve never actually tried HomeBrew, as I didn’t want anything 
>> installed into core OS areas. And after choosing  MacPorts years ago - 10+ 
>> at this point? - I’ve always been very happy with the experience. Enough so 
>> that I’m finally giving back, as a contributor!
>> 
>> One advantage that HomeBrew does have, though, is cachet: There are so many 
>> times when articles - or even organizations, such as Google - simply 
>> recommend using HomeBrew… with no mention of MacPorts.
>> 
>> So, my feeling is that we need to up our public relations game. Do we have 
>> an active social media presence, for example? (Twitter in particular?)
>> 
>> Of note, while I’m not an expert in social media relations, I’d happily 
>> volunteer to help with it.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Hi! Long-time user of both Homebrew and MacPorts here; former Homebrew 
> maintainer.
> 
> It's definitely a PR issue; Homebrew is winning on that front.
> 
> IMHO, the other thing is that Homebrew is fun to use and accessible to 
> less-technical users. Friendlier command output, low-jargon documentation, 
> sense of humor, fun emojis. MacPorts feels like more of a "pro" thing and 
> serious sysadmin tool, and its command output can be kind of technical and 
> intimidating. I think the Homebrew approach is attractive to a lot of general 
> Mac users, especially those approaching a package manager for the first time.
> 
> Another big thing is that Homebrew ships binaries for everything, so you can 
> do a full Homebrew install of a big toolchain in just a few minutes, where it 
> might take hours to compile. MacPorts still builds everything from source, 
> right?
> 
> Those are the reasons I always recommend Homebrew to new Mac package manager 
> users, even though I think both are good tools.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andrew

Re: Desolate Condition

[Andrew Janke]

On 1/26/21 10:12 AM, Christopher Nielsen wrote:
>> /Ken Cunningham wrote:
>> /
>> homebrew is in shambles.
>>
>> their long-touted "no-sudo" and "no PATH" advantage from installing
>> into /usr/local has been eliminated by Apple as the horrible security
>> threat it always was. They have to retool into /opt/homebrew and make
>> 10,000 builds respect the build args now.
>>
>> They stripped out all their universal handling code a few years ago,
>> can't put it back, and so can't do the critical universal builds any
>> more. They tell everyone universal is wasteful, lipo things manually,
>> and run the x86_64 homebrew on Apple Silicon.
>>
>> So MacPorts, which works great from 10.4 PPC to 11.x arm64, is the
>> place to be.
>
> Personnally, I’ve never actually tried HomeBrew, as I didn’t want
> anything installed into core OS areas. And after choosing  MacPorts
> years ago - 10+ at this point? - I’ve always been very happy with the
> experience. Enough so that I’m finally giving back, as a contributor!
>
> One advantage that HomeBrew does have, though, is cachet: There are so
> many times when articles - or even organizations, such as Google -
> simply recommend using HomeBrew… with no mention of MacPorts.
>
> So, my feeling is that we need to up our public relations game. Do we
> have an active social media presence, for example? (Twitter in
> particular?)
>
> Of note, while I’m not an expert in social media relations, I’d
> happily volunteer to help with it.
>
> Thoughts?

Hi! Long-time user of both Homebrew and MacPorts here; former Homebrew
maintainer.

It's definitely a PR issue; Homebrew is winning on that front.

IMHO, the other thing is that Homebrew is /fun/ to use and accessible to
less-technical users. Friendlier command output, low-jargon
documentation, sense of humor, fun emojis. MacPorts feels like more of a
"pro" thing and serious sysadmin tool, and its command output can be
kind of technical and intimidating. I think the Homebrew approach is
attractive to a lot of general Mac users, especially those approaching a
package manager for the first time.

Another big thing is that Homebrew ships binaries for everything, so you
can do a full Homebrew install of a big toolchain in just a few minutes,
where it might take hours to compile. MacPorts still builds everything
from source, right?

Those are the reasons I always recommend Homebrew to new Mac package
manager users, even though I think both are good tools.

Cheers,
Andrew

RE: Desolate Condition

[Christopher Nielsen]

> Ken Cunningham wrote:
> 
> homebrew is in shambles.
> 
> their long-touted "no-sudo" and "no PATH" advantage from installing into 
> /usr/local has been eliminated by Apple as the horrible security threat it 
> always was. They have to retool into /opt/homebrew and make 10,000 builds 
> respect the build args now.
> 
> They stripped out all their universal handling code a few years ago, can't 
> put it back, and so can't do the critical universal builds any more. They 
> tell everyone universal is wasteful, lipo things manually, and run the x86_64 
> homebrew on Apple Silicon.
> 
> So MacPorts, which works great from 10.4 PPC to 11.x arm64, is the place to 
> be.

Personnally, I’ve never actually tried HomeBrew, as I didn’t want anything 
installed into core OS areas. And after choosing  MacPorts years ago - 10+ at 
this point? - I’ve always been very happy with the experience. Enough so that 
I’m finally giving back, as a contributor!

One advantage that HomeBrew does have, though, is cachet: There are so many 
times when articles - or even organizations, such as Google - simply recommend 
using HomeBrew… with no mention of MacPorts.

So, my feeling is that we need to up our public relations game. Do we have an 
active social media presence, for example? (Twitter in particular?)

Of note, while I’m not an expert in social media relations, I’d happily 
volunteer to help with it.

Thoughts?