Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Gentoo: OSX

Current installation method

 

 

Gentoo osx RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


ndimiduk at gentoo

Jan 25, 2006, 4:08 PM

Post #1 of 14 (8586 views)
Permalink
Current installation method

What is the current installation method for portage on osx? I noticed
the installer from http://metadistribution.org/macos/ is gone. I've
started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most
recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be
appropriate. I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.

Also, is portage/scripts/bootstrap-darwin.sh still up to date?

Thanks,
-Nick

--
Nick Dimiduk
Gentoo Developer
ndimiduk (at) gentoo (dot) org
--
gentoo-osx [at] gentoo mailing list


grobian at gentoo

Jan 26, 2006, 1:22 AM

Post #2 of 14 (8307 views)
Permalink
Re: Current installation method [In reply to]

On 25-01-2006 18:08:04 -0500, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> What is the current installation method for portage on osx? I noticed
> the installer from http://metadistribution.org/macos/ is gone. I've

The installer is there, the official documentation is gone, because we
don't support that (anchient) installer any more.

> started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most
> recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be
> appropriate. I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.

Does 2.1 work properly on OSX? I have problems with 2.0.53 and up...

> Also, is portage/scripts/bootstrap-darwin.sh still up to date?

Don't know. Maybe kito knows.

Be sure to ask, before you put a lot of efforts in it. Current plans
are more or less to be targetted fully at the prefixed installer, so
maybe if you don't have a running setup any more, you should switch to
the prefixed project immediately. Kito, comments?


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project
--
gentoo-osx [at] gentoo mailing list


sebastien at atlantic-creations

Jan 26, 2006, 1:34 AM

Post #3 of 14 (8318 views)
Permalink
Re: Re: Current installation method [In reply to]

I will be out of the office until Monday, January 30, 2006.

For emergencies please call 334.728.1868

Thanks,

S├ębastien Arnaud
@tlantic web creations, llc
sebastien [at] atlantic-creations
334.239.4481



--
gentoo-osx [at] gentoo mailing list


ndimiduk at gentoo

Jan 26, 2006, 10:28 AM

Post #4 of 14 (8339 views)
Permalink
Re: Current installation method [In reply to]

Grobian wrote:
> The installer is there, the official documentation is gone, because we
> don't support that (anchient) installer any more.

My mistake. Didn't see it there...

>> started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most
>> recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be
>> appropriate. I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.
>
> Does 2.1 work properly on OSX? I have problems with 2.0.53 and up...

Should I use the latest 2.0.52?

>> Also, is portage/scripts/bootstrap-darwin.sh still up to date?
>
> Don't know. Maybe kito knows.
>
> Be sure to ask, before you put a lot of efforts in it. Current plans
> are more or less to be targetted fully at the prefixed installer, so
> maybe if you don't have a running setup any more, you should switch to
> the prefixed project immediately. Kito, comments?

My intention is to build a clean chroot for the reliable testing of
packages for keywording. I don't mind doing so for the prefix version
of portage; my understanding is that it's not quite ready yet. I'd like
to work on keywording in the mean time. I'll try to contact kito
directly for more details.

--
gentoo-osx [at] gentoo mailing list


grobian at gentoo

Jan 26, 2006, 11:21 AM

Post #5 of 14 (8315 views)
Permalink
Re: Current installation method [In reply to]

On 26-01-2006 12:28:02 -0500, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> >>started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most recent
> >>portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be appropriate.
> >>I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.
> >Does 2.1 work properly on OSX? I have problems with 2.0.53 and up...
>
> Should I use the latest 2.0.52?

Just "upgrade" to the latest from the installer (mind the
collision-protect issue...): 2.0.51.22-r3

> My intention is to build a clean chroot for the reliable testing of
> packages for keywording. I don't mind doing so for the prefix version
> of portage; my understanding is that it's not quite ready yet. I'd
> like to work on keywording in the mean time. I'll try to contact kito
> directly for more details.

Good. Very good.

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project
--
gentoo-osx [at] gentoo mailing list


kito at gentoo

Jan 26, 2006, 8:33 PM

Post #6 of 14 (8308 views)
Permalink
Re: Current installation method [In reply to]

On Jan 26, 2006, at 2:22 AM, Grobian wrote:

> On 25-01-2006 18:08:04 -0500, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
>
>> started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most
>> recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be
>> appropriate. I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.
>
> Does 2.1 work properly on OSX? I have problems with 2.0.53 and up...

Hmm? I think the problems you have are profile related, and not
portage. The prefix branch works fine all the way up to svn trunk.

>
>> Also, is portage/scripts/bootstrap-darwin.sh still up to date?
>
> Don't know. Maybe kito knows.

Depends on what you want it todo, I used it to create a Tiger chroot
using 10.4.2 install media a couple months ago.

--Kito

--
gentoo-osx [at] gentoo mailing list


kito at gentoo

Jan 26, 2006, 8:39 PM

Post #7 of 14 (8309 views)
Permalink
Re: Current installation method [In reply to]

On Jan 26, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
>
>>> Also, is portage/scripts/bootstrap-darwin.sh still up to date?
>> Don't know. Maybe kito knows.
>> Be sure to ask, before you put a lot of efforts in it. Current plans
>> are more or less to be targetted fully at the prefixed installer, so
>> maybe if you don't have a running setup any more, you should
>> switch to
>> the prefixed project immediately. Kito, comments?
>
> My intention is to build a clean chroot for the reliable testing of
> packages for keywording. I don't mind doing so for the prefix
> version of portage; my understanding is that it's not quite ready
> yet. I'd like to work on keywording in the mean time. I'll try to
> contact kito directly for more details.

Well, the current plan is to get everything thats currently {~}ppc-
macos in the main tree, into the prefix tree. So I would much prefer
if you didn't spend any effort on keywording more packages just yet.
The prefix installer pkg in my homedir has some bugs, but its pretty
easy to get setup, and I'm working on a new one that should be even
easier, however that won't be ready for at least a week or 2.

If you can catch me on IRC I can help you get setup rather
quickly...and we could definitely use the help (a doc? =)

--Kito

kito [at] gentoo



--
gentoo-osx [at] gentoo mailing list


grobian at gentoo

Jan 27, 2006, 2:14 AM

Post #8 of 14 (8314 views)
Permalink
Re: Current installation method [In reply to]

On 26-01-2006 21:33:17 -0600, Kito wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2006, at 2:22 AM, Grobian wrote:
>
> >On 25-01-2006 18:08:04 -0500, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> >
> >>started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most
> >>recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be
> >>appropriate. I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.
> >
> >Does 2.1 work properly on OSX? I have problems with 2.0.53 and up...
>
> Hmm? I think the problems you have are profile related, and not
> portage. The prefix branch works fine all the way up to svn trunk.

Nope, it's related to the later portage tools dropping 'hardcoded
support' for OSX, that's why I haven't keyworded the newer version,
because it simply generates python stack traces for some tools (not
emerge), which I don't consider to be "good". It was deliberately not
fixed (sort of impossible), hence deliberately not keyworded by me.


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project
--
gentoo-osx [at] gentoo mailing list


ferringb at gentoo

Jan 27, 2006, 10:12 AM

Post #9 of 14 (8310 views)
Permalink
Re: Current installation method [In reply to]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:14:26AM +0100, Grobian wrote:
> On 26-01-2006 21:33:17 -0600, Kito wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 2006, at 2:22 AM, Grobian wrote:
> >
> > >On 25-01-2006 18:08:04 -0500, Nick Dimiduk wrote:
> > >
> > >>started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most
> > >>recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be
> > >>appropriate. I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution.
> > >
> > >Does 2.1 work properly on OSX? I have problems with 2.0.53 and up...
> >
> > Hmm? I think the problems you have are profile related, and not
> > portage. The prefix branch works fine all the way up to svn trunk.
>
> Nope, it's related to the later portage tools dropping 'hardcoded
> support' for OSX, that's why I haven't keyworded the newer version,
> because it simply generates python stack traces for some tools (not
> emerge), which I don't consider to be "good". It was deliberately not
> fixed (sort of impossible), hence deliberately not keyworded by me.

What tools?
Granted, buttload of portage bugs (thus easy to miss something), but
portage bundled tools should be forcing sys.path mangling.

~harring


grobian at gentoo

Jan 27, 2006, 11:52 AM

Post #10 of 14 (8311 views)
Permalink
Re: Current installation method [In reply to]

On 27-01-2006 09:12:43 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Nope, it's related to the later portage tools dropping 'hardcoded
> > support' for OSX, that's why I haven't keyworded the newer version,
> > because it simply generates python stack traces for some tools (not
> > emerge), which I don't consider to be "good". It was deliberately not
> > fixed (sort of impossible), hence deliberately not keyworded by me.
>
> What tools?
> Granted, buttload of portage bugs (thus easy to miss something), but
> portage bundled tools should be forcing sys.path mangling.

Bug #113551

Problem is IMHO that on our current setup our shells don't get the stuff
from portage, because the shells don't come with the gentoo rc scripts.


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project
--
gentoo-osx [at] gentoo mailing list


ferringb at gentoo

Jan 27, 2006, 12:16 PM

Post #11 of 14 (8303 views)
Permalink
Re: Current installation method [In reply to]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 07:52:44PM +0100, Grobian wrote:
> On 27-01-2006 09:12:43 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > Nope, it's related to the later portage tools dropping 'hardcoded
> > > support' for OSX, that's why I haven't keyworded the newer version,
> > > because it simply generates python stack traces for some tools (not
> > > emerge), which I don't consider to be "good". It was deliberately not
> > > fixed (sort of impossible), hence deliberately not keyworded by me.
> >
> > What tools?
> > Granted, buttload of portage bugs (thus easy to miss something), but
> > portage bundled tools should be forcing sys.path mangling.
>
> Bug #113551
>
> Problem is IMHO that on our current setup our shells don't get the stuff
> from portage, because the shells don't come with the gentoo rc scripts.

Err... legacy crap (yay).
Comment regarding "won't be a problem for long"- would be nice having
some clarification on that one :)

The tools that are broken *still* should be external to portage
(exception is emaint). Any others, should have the hardcoded
insertion.
~harring


grobian at gentoo

Jan 27, 2006, 12:50 PM

Post #12 of 14 (8322 views)
Permalink
Re: Current installation method [In reply to]

On 27-01-2006 11:16:05 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Bug #113551
> >
> > Problem is IMHO that on our current setup our shells don't get the stuff
> > from portage, because the shells don't come with the gentoo rc scripts.
>
> Err... legacy crap (yay).
> Comment regarding "won't be a problem for long"- would be nice having
> some clarification on that one :)

Problem does not occur to me in prefixed portage. "long" is a relative
thing. :p

> The tools that are broken *still* should be external to portage
> (exception is emaint). Any others, should have the hardcoded
> insertion.

Ehm, ok. When will your 'fix' be available for us? In next snapshot
release of portage 2.1? Thanks by the way.



--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project
--
gentoo-osx [at] gentoo mailing list


ferringb at gentoo

Jan 27, 2006, 9:08 PM

Post #13 of 14 (8323 views)
Permalink
Re: Current installation method [In reply to]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 08:50:58PM +0100, Grobian wrote:
> On 27-01-2006 11:16:05 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > Bug #113551
> > >
> > > Problem is IMHO that on our current setup our shells don't get the stuff
> > > from portage, because the shells don't come with the gentoo rc scripts.
> >
> > Err... legacy crap (yay).
> > Comment regarding "won't be a problem for long"- would be nice having
> > some clarification on that one :)
>
> Problem does not occur to me in prefixed portage. "long" is a relative
> thing. :p
>
> > The tools that are broken *still* should be external to portage
> > (exception is emaint). Any others, should have the hardcoded
> > insertion.
>
> Ehm, ok. When will your 'fix' be available for us? In next snapshot
> release of portage 2.1? Thanks by the way.
At least for emaint, commited the path insertion earlier today.
You're going to need to be a bit more specific if there are others
failing though.

~harring


gaber at gaber

Jun 17, 2008, 1:42 AM

Post #14 of 14 (8321 views)
Permalink
Re: Current installation method [In reply to]

Hi.

I've installed kito pkg on new mac. First, I've noticed that symlinks
are absolute. But why not relative?
Changing $PREFIX makes bad dst of those files. I try prepare new pkg.

gaber

--
gg: 606 ripe: mg3051 jid: gaber/gentoo.pl
Attachments: PGP.sig (0.18 KB)

Gentoo osx RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.