>> > So it really does come down to portage after all. Portage has a hard >> > dependency on bash. portage is intimately wrapped up in the linux way of >> > doing things. >> >> Right, we have to say Bash. To be exact Bash is GNU not Linux. I >> genarally say Linux not Gnu-Linux. However in this case the difference >> matters. >> >> http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/ > > I fail to see how this is relevant. Portage requires bash, not sh.
Did I say sh? It matters that portage depends on bash not on linux. Bash is available on Win and Mac. > So you don't work at a Tier 1 ISP then? Definitly not. I rather work at the other end, the desktop. Never seen anything bigger then a PC. > I never said porting portage could not be done, I said it would be hard work. It is challenging, but not to difficult so far. > I don't see the point of portage on FreeBSD frankly, considering the general > use-case where FreeBSD shines. ports is more than adequate for that and I > don't need the maintenance overhead of portage on machines requiring weekly > updates. I don't build embedded systems or need highly customized OSes. > I wouldn't port it to BSD either. If I want to reach many people I still have to start with windows. > In fact, portage is complete overkill and I refuse to allow it to be deployed > at work. Check my posting history for the rationale behind this. What is gentoo if you substract portage? I am courious now. Al
