I think i've asked before, but I can't seem to find it in the archives...
DarwinPorts or Fink...
What does the list prefer and why?
Actually, I use both.
Fink has a wider selection of ports but I much prefer MacPorts more elegant setup and execution (it's very similar to FreeBSD's port manager and I spend a lot of time within FreeBSD).
Charley
Eric Coleman wrote:
I think i've asked before, but I can't seem to find it in the archives...
DarwinPorts or Fink...
What does the list prefer and why?
For new threads USE THIS: textmate@lists.macromates.com (threading gets destroyed and the universe will collapse if you don't) http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate
On 11/8/06, Charley Tiggs lists@tiggs.net wrote:
(...) I much prefer MacPorts more elegant setup and execution (...)
Same here.
BTW, I install it in /usr/local/ instead of /opt/local/, is much easier IMHO. (./configure –prefix='/usr/local')
If you're tallying votes: only MacPorts here.
BTW, I install it in /usr/local/ instead of /opt/local/, is much easier IMHO. (./configure –prefix='/usr/local')
I still like to keep /usr/local/* open for my own-own-very-own sandbox when I find myself having to compile my own things, however.
-steve
I abandoned Fink some time ago for MacPorts. It's simply more elegant and *nix friendly. I also prefer to kep /usr/local/* open for my very own sandbox.
Chris
On Nov 7, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Steve Lianoglou wrote:
If you're tallying votes: only MacPorts here.
BTW, I install it in /usr/local/ instead of /opt/local/, is much easier IMHO. (./configure –prefix='/usr/local')
I still like to keep /usr/local/* open for my own-own-very-own sandbox when I find myself having to compile my own things, however.
-steve
For new threads USE THIS: textmate@lists.macromates.com (threading gets destroyed and the universe will collapse if you don't) http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate
Eric Coleman wrote:
I think i've asked before, but I can't seem to find it in the archives...
DarwinPorts or Fink...
What does the list prefer and why?
It need not be an either/or proposition. I have both, but use fink about 99% of the time. If you need scientific software, it clearly has a much wider selection. I also maintain a few packages and am extremely impressed with the quality control and dedication of the fink core team, not to mention their helpfulness. It has very active mail lists and an extremely helpful and knowledgeable user community.
It is based on the Debian package management system, which I think is very well designed. (It in fact impelled me to switch to Ubuntu linux from the RH beast.)
FWIW, I think it is inviting trouble to put either in /usr/local. The whole idea for having /opt/local or /sw is to avoid conflicts, and in case of trouble, you can move or delete those directories easily. Both make a point of keeping stuff isolated within their respective domains. The advantages of this are large, and the inconveniences are neglegable.
Darwin Ports. I gave up on Fink a long time ago. Also, DP is now called MacPorts.
Jamie
On Nov 8, 2006, at 12:15 AM, William Scott wrote:
Eric Coleman wrote:
I think i've asked before, but I can't seem to find it in the archives...
DarwinPorts or Fink...
What does the list prefer and why?
It need not be an either/or proposition. I have both, but use fink about 99% of the time. If you need scientific software, it clearly has a much wider selection. I also maintain a few packages and am extremely impressed with the quality control and dedication of the fink core team, not to mention their helpfulness. It has very active mail lists and an extremely helpful and knowledgeable user community.
It is based on the Debian package management system, which I think is very well designed. (It in fact impelled me to switch to Ubuntu linux from the RH beast.)
FWIW, I think it is inviting trouble to put either in /usr/local. The whole idea for having /opt/local or /sw is to avoid conflicts, and in case of trouble, you can move or delete those directories easily. Both make a point of keeping stuff isolated within their respective domains. The advantages of this are large, and the inconveniences are neglegable.
For new threads USE THIS: textmate@lists.macromates.com (threading gets destroyed and the universe will collapse if you don't) http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate
On 11/8/06, William Scott wgscott@chemistry.ucsc.edu wrote:
FWIW, I think it is inviting trouble to put either in /usr/local. The whole idea for having /opt/local or /sw is to avoid conflicts, and in case of trouble, you can move or delete those directories easily. Both make a point of keeping stuff isolated within their respective domains. The advantages of this are large, and the inconveniences are neglegable.
I don't see why having e.g. ruby in /usr/local/bin would cause more trouble than having it in /opt/local/bin, quite the contrary in fact. On OS X, "official" packages are in /usr/bin and I don't touch those. I read people telling they replaced /usr/bin/ruby and I think *that* is the bad idea.
I use darwinports since as long as I've heard about it and never had a single problem.
On 11/8/06, Steve Lianoglou lists@arachnedesign.net wrote:
I still like to keep /usr/local/* open for my own-own-very-own sandbox when I find myself having to compile my own things, however.
I use ~/bin for that. It's easier to work in a non-hidden directory.
I guess there is not much point to argue anyway, to each his own.
Hi,
I still like to keep /usr/local/* open for my own-own-very-own sandbox when I find myself having to compile my own things, however.
I use ~/bin for that. It's easier to work in a non-hidden directory.
I guess there is not much point to argue anyway, to each his own.
Not argue -- discussing pros and cons for the sake of posterity :-)
I wouldn't have thought to dump my own compiled stuff in ~/bin, which seems to take care of what most people use /usr/local/* for ... but doesn't it create things like ~/libexec, ~/lib, ~/share, etc. when you compile your own packages with "--prefix=/User/myaccount"?
On OS X, "official" packages are in /usr/bin and I don't touch those. I read people telling they replaced /usr/bin/ruby and I think *that* is the bad idea.
Oh yeah, I'm w/ you on that one -- bad idea.
-steve
On Nov 8, 2006, at 8:26 AM, Steve Lianoglou wrote:
I wouldn't have thought to dump my own compiled stuff in ~/bin, which seems to take care of what most people use /usr/local/* for ... but doesn't it create things like ~/libexec, ~/lib, ~/ share, etc. when you compile your own packages with "--prefix=/User/ myaccount"?
Yes, it does. For that reason I maintain ~/local which contains the bin, lib, libexec, etc. Works pretty well for me, though I only use it for a very few things.
i.e. --prefix=/Users/myaccount/local
-dan
Eric Coleman wrote:
I think i've asked before, but I can't seem to find it in the archives...
DarwinPorts or Fink...
What does the list prefer and why?
Has anyone tried out pkgsrc?
http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/software/packages.html
I used to use fink but all of the packages I used got very out of date, and the newer versions were only in the unstable branch (latest php or postgres) so I switched to DarwinPorts.
Also if DarwinPorts is now MacPorts then why are both http://darwinports.opendarwin.org/ and http://www.macports.org/ both operational? Shouldn't the darwinports site be removed if it is just old stuff? Or at least it should have a not pointing you to the newer macports site?
On Nov 8, 2006, at 7:01 PM, Rick Gigger wrote:
Has anyone tried out pkgsrc?
I have not, but note that:
"You cannot use an ordinary HFS+ file system for pkgsrc, because pkgsrc currently requires the file system to be case-sensitive. You can, however, use a case-sensitive HFS+ (aka HFSX) file system as found in Darwin 7.0 and newer."
I used to use fink but all of the packages I used got very out of date, and the newer versions were only in the unstable branch (latest php or postgres) so I switched to DarwinPorts.
I used fink until at some point it annoyed me one time too many, can't recall what I found annoying though. DP isn't perfect (e.g, right now due to packaging errors GnuCash won't build/install) but has annoyed me less.
Also if DarwinPorts is now MacPorts then why are both http:// darwinports.opendarwin.org/ and http://www.macports.org/ both operational? Shouldn't the darwinports site be removed if it is just old stuff? Or at least it should have a not pointing you to the newer macports site?
It says this on DP:
"As part of the transition to Mac OS Forge, the DarwinPorts project will adopt the new name MacPorts, utilizing the macports.org domain, which it recently acquired. "We believe the new name MacPorts better reflects our mission, which is to provide a collection of open source ports for Mac OS X, with future supportfor binary packages", says Juan Manuel Palacios, another DarwinPorts member.
Members of the DarwinPorts/MacPorts project and portmgr team will work with opendarwin.org and Mac OS Forge to effect a smooth transition over the coming weeks."
j.
On Nov 8, 2006, at 6:37 PM, Jay Soffian wrote:
Also if DarwinPorts is now MacPorts then why are both http:// darwinports.opendarwin.org/ and http://www.macports.org/ both operational? Shouldn't the darwinports site be removed if it is just old stuff? Or at least it should have a not pointing you to the newer macports site?
It says this on DP:
"As part of the transition to Mac OS Forge, the DarwinPorts project will adopt the new name MacPorts, utilizing the macports.org domain, which it recently acquired. "We believe the new name MacPorts better reflects our mission, which is to provide a collection of open source ports for Mac OS X, with future supportfor binary packages", says Juan Manuel Palacios, another DarwinPorts member.
Members of the DarwinPorts/MacPorts project and portmgr team will work with opendarwin.org and Mac OS Forge to effect a smooth transition over the coming weeks."
If you have syncd your MacPorts/Darwinports recently you will see this in the beginning:
DEBUG: Rebuilding the MacPorts base system if needed. Synchronizing from rsync://rsync.darwinports.org/dpupdate/dports receiving file list ... done ./
and in the end you will see this:
Downloaded MacPorts base version 1.320 The MacPorts installation is not outdated and so was not updated DEBUG: Setting ownership to root selfupdate done!
I'm a big fan of MacPorts. I have tried Fink for some time, but in my experience it sometimes messes in places that it shouldn't (i.e. anything outsides /sw), and you never see that in MacPorts.
Rick Gigger wrote:
Also if DarwinPorts is now MacPorts then why are both http://darwinports.opendarwin.org/ and http://www.macports.org/ both operational? Shouldn't the darwinports site be removed if it is just old stuff? Or at least it should have a not pointing you to the newer macports site?
I heard that they are still in the migration process. They seem to be wanting to do it properly this time and take the time to do it.
It does have a not on it pointing you to the new site though. Not clearly listed, but it's there.
Also, they discourage manually changing the rsync server. The DNS entries for the original darwinports rsync servers redirect to the proper servers and may even update those redirects in the future.
Jeroen.
Jeroen van der Ham <jeroen@...> writes:
I'm a big fan of MacPorts. I have tried Fink for some time, but in my experience it sometimes messes in places that it shouldn't (i.e. anything outsides /sw), and you never see that in MacPorts.
That's not true.
The following packages install outside of /opt/local:
DarwinPortsStartup Xaw3d python24 qt3-mac subversion-javahlbindings
Regards, Blair
-- Blair Zajac, Ph.D. http://www.orcaware.com/svn/
-
Blair Zajac -
Charley Tiggs -
Chris Van Cleve -
Dan Lowe -
Eric Coleman -
Fred B -
Jamie Orchard-Hays -
Jay Soffian -
Jeroen van der Ham -
Rick Gigger -
Ron Rosson -
Steve Lianoglou -
William Scott