On Oct 14, 2008, at 09:55, Rainer Müller wrote:
> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>>> There would be multiple possible solutions:
>>>
>>> a) Add a "linux" platform to the default sections
>>> Means selecting a specific gcc version (I wanted to add a
>>> configuration value to macports.conf anyway,
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> There would be multiple possible solutions:
>>
>> a) Add a "linux" platform to the default sections
>> Means selecting a specific gcc version (I wanted to add a
>> configuration value to macports.conf anyway, would allow to
>> overwrite it). Would only fix Linux
Le 13 oct. 08 à 19:02, rhubbell a écrit :
6. Verification of Compliance. You agree that authorized Apple
representatives, with 24 hours advance notice, may inspect the
location
where the Prototype is stored, the Prototype and copies of other
Confidential Information and your Prototype acce
On Oct 13, 2008, at 1:02 PM, rhubbell wrote:
My inspiration for the question was the words in the "Membership
Agreement"
6. Verification of Compliance. You agree that authorized Apple
representatives, with 24 hours advance notice, may inspect the
location
where the Prototype is stored, the
On Oct 13, 2008, at 10:02 AM, rhubbell wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 14:43 -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 2008, at 14:36, rhubbell wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 01:18 -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>
I suppose. But what would be the advantage? What's so awful about
having
On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 14:43 -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2008, at 14:36, rhubbell wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 01:18 -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >> I suppose. But what would be the advantage? What's so awful about
> >> having to install Xcode?
> >
> > My inspiration for the q
On 2008-10-11 14:50:00 +0200, Emmanuel Hainry wrote:
> And those problems would be solved if macports did not rely on third
> party tools (gcc, tcl, x11 which have or have had bugs in the past and
> apple's versions are not without those bugs).
or are out-of-date, leading to problems like:
http
On Oct 13, 2008, at 00:47, Rainer Müller wrote:
> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 2008, at 04:01, Emmanuel Hainry wrote:
>>> DEBUG: Executing org.macports.configure
>>> Error: Target org.macports.configure returned: Invalid value for
>>> configure.compiler
>>>
>>> My way of dealing with that was
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2008, at 04:01, Emmanuel Hainry wrote:
>> DEBUG: Executing org.macports.configure
>> Error: Target org.macports.configure returned: Invalid value for
>> configure.compiler
>>
>> My way of dealing with that was to modify a few lines in
>> portconfigure.tcl: there's a
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Well, then my next complaint would be with a bootstrapped X11.
> Apple X11 seems nice enough, but when I tried XFree86 it was
> totally ugly (weird non-Mac-like cursor and window behavior, etc.)
> I didn't try xorg, and I don't know if sources for Apple X11 are
> avai
On Oct 12, 2008, at 14:54, Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>>> I really don't want to have to build or use a bootstrapped GCC, X11
>>> and all to have a self-contained MacPorts installation.
>>
>> Also, don't forget that only Apple's gcc installed with Xcode can
>> create univers
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> I really don't want to have to build or use a bootstrapped GCC, X11
>> and all to have a self-contained MacPorts installation.
>
> Also, don't forget that only Apple's gcc installed with Xcode can
> create universal binaries in one step (with e.g. "-arch i386 -arch
> ppc
On Oct 12, 2008, at 14:36, rhubbell wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 01:18 -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> I suppose. But what would be the advantage? What's so awful about
>> having to install Xcode?
>
> My inspiration for the question was the words in the "Membership
> Agreement"
>
> 6.Verifi
On Oct 12, 2008, at 04:01, Emmanuel Hainry wrote:
> Citando Ryan Schmidt :
>
>> On Oct 11, 2008, at 07:50, Emmanuel Hainry wrote:
>>
>>> I no longer use Xcode as my
>>> powerbook is now dead. I use the build tools provided by my linux
>>> distribution. Note that it becomes difficult as MacPorts tr
On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 01:18 -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2008, at 14:31, Darren Weber wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Bryan Blackburn wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:16:08PM -0700, rhubbell said:
> >>
> >>> Probably a ridiculous question. (never stopped me before
On Oct 11, 2008, at 04:58, nox wrote:
> I really don't want to have to build or use a bootstrapped GCC, X11
> and all to have a self-contained MacPorts installation.
Also, don't forget that only Apple's gcc installed with Xcode can
create universal binaries in one step (with e.g. "-arch i386 -a
Citando Ryan Schmidt :
>
> On Oct 11, 2008, at 07:50, Emmanuel Hainry wrote:
>
>>> Another factor (though I think we're just discussing philosphy, not
>>> immediate plans): Every port maintainer and core developer uses
>>> Xcode.
>>
>> Such a statement had to have an exception: I no longer use Xc
On Oct 11, 2008, at 07:50, Emmanuel Hainry wrote:
>> Another factor (though I think we're just discussing philosphy, not
>> immediate plans): Every port maintainer and core developer uses
>> Xcode.
>
> Such a statement had to have an exception: I no longer use Xcode as my
> powerbook is now dea
Citando Jay Levitt :
> Anders F Björklund wrote:
> > nox wrote:
> >
> >>> One reason could be to keep MacPorts fully "self-contained",
> >>> and to cut down on the amount of "outside" dependencies... ?
> >>> Currently there is a big grey zone of what's ok to use from
> >>> system (GCC, X11, etc) a
Anders F Björklund wrote:
> nox wrote:
>
>>> One reason could be to keep MacPorts fully "self-contained",
>>> and to cut down on the amount of "outside" dependencies... ?
>>> Currently there is a big grey zone of what's ok to use from
>>> system (GCC, X11, etc) and what is not (Perl, Python, etc)
nox wrote:
>> One reason could be to keep MacPorts fully "self-contained",
>> and to cut down on the amount of "outside" dependencies... ?
>> Currently there is a big grey zone of what's ok to use from
>> system (GCC, X11, etc) and what is not (Perl, Python, etc)
> I really don't want to have to
Le 11 oct. 08 à 09:54, Anders F Björklund a écrit :
> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
As long as MacPorts builds ports from source, then Xcode is an
absolute
requirement (for gcc etc). If the day comes that MacPorts
distributes
binary packages, then Xcode may only be needed by some
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> As long as MacPorts builds ports from source, then Xcode is an
>>> absolute
>>> requirement (for gcc etc). If the day comes that MacPorts
>>> distributes
>>> binary packages, then Xcode may only be needed by some ports and not
>>> MacPorts as a whole.
>>
>> As a guess, the
On Oct 10, 2008, at 14:31, Darren Weber wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Bryan Blackburn wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:16:08PM -0700, rhubbell said:
>>
>>> Probably a ridiculous question. (never stopped me before)
>>> Is macports always and forever dependent upon Xcode?
>>> Can it
As a guess, the macports installation process could include
a) tcl
b) a build system port (bootstrapped) to replace Xcode distributions
Darren
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Bryan Blackburn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:16:08PM -0700, rhubbell said:
>> Hello all,
>>
>>
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:16:08PM -0700, rhubbell said:
> Hello all,
>
> Probably a ridiculous question. (never stopped me before)
> Is macports always and forever dependent upon Xcode?
> Can it be de-coupled?
>
As long as MacPorts builds ports from source, then Xcode is an absolute
requirement
26 matches
Mail list logo
