-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We definitely need a way to have fs overlay.
I definitely won't complain if someone wants to implement it and throw
it in portage.
Lina Pezzella
Ebuild/Porting Co-Lead
Gentoo for Mac OS X
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
iD
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 7, 2005, at 1:02 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:58:13 -0400 Lina Pezzella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > OSX sed does not do -i at all. Read up on the original "why OSX
| > ca
Lina Pezzella wrote:
>
> And if you want to you can replace them (see the progressive profile).
> At your own risk of course. Personally, I run vim7 from portage. The
> problem is that we simply cannot guarantee that Apple will play nice
> with us stomping on their core system tools, therefore the
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:58:13 -0400 Lina Pezzella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > OSX sed does not do -i at all. Read up on the original "why OSX
| > cannot PROVIDE sed-4" discussion.
|
| Good! I'm not going insane! I KNEW it didn't used to do "-i"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:17 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
Stroller wrote:
Do you actually use OS X?
When I'm forced by a friend asking for a particular package yes.
This is not a case of sed being broken on BSD / OS X - on a Mac
everything works fine out of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
OSX sed does not do -i at all. Read up on the original "why OSX cannot
PROVIDE sed-4" discussion.
Good! I'm not going insane! I KNEW it didn't used to do "-i". It
definitely does now though. Interestin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:31 AM, Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 14:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The OS X sed is broken. Or, at least, it is not a satisfactory
provider
of sed-4, which is what we DEPEND upon.
Well osx's sed is just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:04 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
[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 equ
On Thursday 07 April 2005 17:39, Luca Barbato wrote:
> last time I checked the maintree gcc has the fix for the 'consider
> whatever .h as extern "C" ' ancient workaround, that now breaks C++
> templates. the standard gcc provided by apple or the gcc from darwin
> branch not.
Well, I've tried that
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò wrote:
> On Thursday 07 April 2005 17:17, Luca Barbato wrote:
>
>>gcc is non standard and broken, ld is non standard. vim is non standard.
>
> Actually, pure gcc on OSX is broken. Just try to build yourself a vanilla gcc
> and try it with some C++ lib, it will fail beca
On Thursday 07 April 2005 17:17, Luca Barbato wrote:
> gcc is non standard and broken, ld is non standard. vim is non standard.
Actually, pure gcc on OSX is broken. Just try to build yourself a vanilla gcc
and try it with some C++ lib, it will fail because it needs a fix which is
nog going to be
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:17:29 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Stroller wrote:
| > Do you actually use OS X?
| When I'm forced by a friend asking for a particular package yes.
| >
| > This is not a case of sed being broken on BSD / OS X - on a Mac
| > everything works fine out of the
Stroller wrote:
> Do you actually use OS X?
When I'm forced by a friend asking for a particular package yes.
>
> 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,
gcc is non standard and broken, ld is non stand
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:23:33AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:17 am, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > All people I know who use macosx also use fink, not portage...
>
> what does this have to do with anything ?
well, considering I know very little people
running macosx,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 02:24:44PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:17:38 +0200 Stefan Sperling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | So, there's a casual macosx user who does not yet dare to throw
> | away his os in favour of gentoo/ppc. Then he finds out that there
> | is a portag
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:17:38 +0200 Stefan Sperling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| So, there's a casual macosx user who does not yet dare to throw
| away his os in favour of gentoo/ppc. Then he finds out that there
| is a portage port for macosx, so why not give that a go?
If he's not prepared to inst
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:15:23 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > | This is why collision-protect is on by default after all.
| >
| > Hopefully that nonsense will be going away at some point...
|
| Nonsense being what, the notion of replacing utilites, gentoo/osx,
| collision-protect
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:17 am, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> All people I know who use macosx also use fink, not portage...
what does this have to do with anything ?
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:51:44PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:46:43 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Frankly, it nukes the usefulness of gentoo macos/osx if portage just
> | stomps whatever the hell it wants.
> | This is why collision-protect is on by
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:51:44PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:46:43 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Frankly, it nukes the usefulness of gentoo macos/osx if portage just
> | stomps whatever the hell it wants.
> | This is why collision-protect is on by
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:46:43 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Frankly, it nukes the usefulness of gentoo macos/osx if portage just
| stomps whatever the hell it wants.
| This is why collision-protect is on by default after all.
Hopefully that nonsense will be going away at some poi
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:36:56AM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> We have no control over what Apple will do for a 10.3 -> 10.4 upgrade
> which is why IMHO the smokes and mirrors with paths is the best option.
> You can't go replacing primary OSX files with GNU ones and expect
> everything to be f
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:31:33 +0200 "Diego \"Flameeyes\" Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Thursday 07 April 2005 14:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > The OS X sed is broken. Or, at least, it is not a satisfactory
| > provider of sed-4, which is what we DEPEND upon.
| Well osx's sed is just posix
Brian Harring wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:02:26PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:04:03 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| 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 replaci
On Thursday 07 April 2005 14:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> The OS X sed is broken. Or, at least, it is not a satisfactory provider
> of sed-4, which is what we DEPEND upon.
Well osx's sed is just posix sed, exactly the same of bsd sed.
We depends on gsed for things which, imho, could be done using p
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:02:26PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:04:03 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | 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
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:04:03 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| 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.
Then
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:22:49 +0100 Stroller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| This is not a case of sed being broken on BSD / OS X
The OS X sed is broken. Or, at least, it is not a satisfactory provider
of sed-4, which is what we DEPEND upon.
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell
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
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 co
30 matches
Mail list logo
