On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:22:49AM +0100, Stroller wrote: > On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:33 am, Luca Barbato wrote: > >Brian Harring wrote: > >>Problem with the preference you have above is you're considering > >>portage as the primary pkg manager/authority for that system, which it > >>isn't on osx. > >If a tool is broken you change it, the apple toolchain and probably > >userspace could enjoy some improvements. > > Do you actually use OS X? > > This is not a case of sed being broken on BSD / OS X - on a Mac > everything works fine out of the box, and users can use standard tools, > many of which are provided, just like on any other *NIX. This is a case > where the use of Gentoo would make compiling packages easier & more > convenient for OS X users, and Gentoo prefers a non-standard tool; the > Apple install is not "broken" and many people would not consider > messing with it to be beneficial.
While I'm sure I'm going to get shot by the various people who label the osx toolchain as broken... well. tough cookies. One thing aparently ignored is the implication of my earlier "portage is the secondary manager comment"- the logic of just flat out replacing osx binaries/libs with gentoo replacements --will-- result in one utterly screwed up system when the user upgrades from 10.3 to 10.4. You know apple ain't going to support the broken mess that results, and nor will we most likely. That is why we can't go replacing whatever we label as broken[1] on *any* system where portage is secondary. [1] Yes, exceptions occur. Replacing sed (which works in the context of the osx os) because we label it as deficient doesn't qualify, nor despite my hatred of it, does replacing libtoolize with a gnu equiv that sucks substantially less qualify. ~brian -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
