On Dec 8, 2009, at 15:37, Vlado Plaga wrote:
uninstalled MacPorts as described in the
documentation, reinstalled a new xcode and MacPorts, and wanted to
first install DigiKam by simply saying port install digikam. This
failed after a short time because the file
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:26:00 +1100
Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
That's an orthogonal problem which affects source-based distributions as
well.
You are right, of course.
There's no reason binaries couldn't be updated whenever the ports they
are built from are updated.
Also true. I
On Dec 1, 2009, at 15:45, Vlado Plaga wrote:
Still it is a lot easier to just update a few Portfiles, compared to
building and testing so many different binaries (and providing a
server infrastructure so people can actually download these),
Well, it should be architected so that the process
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Joshua Root j...@macports.org wrote:
On 2009-11-30 20:28, Jasper Frumau wrote:
Well, but who has the authority to choose the packaging format?
Whoever does the work, really.
And how
many base developers does Mac Ports have at its disposal at the moment?
Sure. The question was always what package format to use. At first (~2002)
we discussed dpkg, but abandoned because IIRC at the time Debian preferred
Apple to not use it. We held out hope for apkg, a more advanced/suitable
Apple Package Format, but that didn't materialize. We've discussed on
On 2009-11-30 20:28, Jasper Frumau wrote:
Well, but who has the authority to choose the packaging format?
Whoever does the work, really.
And how
many base developers does Mac Ports have at its disposal at the moment?
Hard question to answer meaningfully (beyond not a lot), but as a
rough
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:54:55 -0800
Frank J. R. Hanstick tro...@comcast.net wrote:
My current platform is a dualMPC-7448 (G4 model) which is still not a well
supported cpu under Linux.
Are you sure your system is still not well supported under Linux?
I have been using Linux before I got my
On 2009-12-1 03:03, Vlado Plaga wrote:
As today's mail from Joshua shows, there are just not enough
contributions to MacPorts to even think of regular binary releases -
especially if we'd like to have them for two or three versions of MacOS
(10.4 to 10.6), with all their different
Citando Jasper Frumau :
However, unless I am on a totally different page, you can make packages in
MacPorts now. They seemed to work fine for me, on simple tests.
I wonder why this is not popular or done then? If a port maintainer can make
packages I would imagine - not an expert at
On 2009-11-27 19:12, Emmanuel Hainry wrote:
Citando Jasper Frumau :
I wonder why this is not popular or done then? If a port maintainer can make
packages I would imagine - not an expert at all myself - I command could be
introduced to install a package and choose the latest binary if need be.
I also wonder. Maybe it is not so popular with the base developpers.
As far as I am aware, the base developers all think this would be a
great idea. Feel free to implement it.
http://trac.macports.org/wiki/FAQ#whynotxyz
The only missing code would be the fetching of those packages when
On Nov 27, 2009, at 2:05 AM, Jasper Frumau wrote:
I am not a base developer so for me this is hard to judge or comprehend, but
is there not any open source code available used by other package managers or
repositories that can be used to start a Mac Ports package manager project?
Sure. The
Hello,
One reason I chose MacPorts over Fink was that there were more ports
available. That may or may not be true now because I have not used
Fink in a while. Unless Fink had changed, there were still a lot of
ports that came with assembly required. Not all ports came as
packages. I
On Nov 26, 2009, at 5:54 AM, Frank J. R. Hanstick wrote:
One reason I chose MacPorts over Fink was that there were more
ports available. That may or may not be true now because I have not
used Fink in a while.
I think it has always been the opposite, I could be wrong. But the
best
I suspect a lot of other software is not this way, and one universal binary
in package format would suffice.
I agree and it would be nice to have one pre-made package of each port that
could be installed using mac ports without the need of compiling.
However, unless I am on a totally
On Nov 25, 2009, at 04:09, Benjamin Dahl wrote:
I'm using macports for a while, but what I haven't understood yet is,
why macports everytime needs to compile the packages instead of
installing prebuild ones. I would love if it did it like fink or like
apt on ubuntu. Would this be possible
Hello,
Wouldn't the problem be how many different packages would be on hand
for different systems and how long each of the packages would need to
be maintained?
On Nov 25, 2009, at 2:22 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Nov 25, 2009, at 04:09, Benjamin Dahl wrote:
I'm using macports for a
17 matches
Mail list logo
