Mailing List Archive

Mike wrote:
> Hello list, I am a new developer for this project, transferring from
> fink.

Welcome!

> First thing's first. I am not sure what the goal of this project
> is, which goes directly to the first package I want to make. Is the
> goal here like fink to bring OSS to Darwin/OSX?

That sounds like a good goal; I'll go with that! ;)

> I want to make xorg-x11
> available for mac-os or macos (whichever the keyword is) and with gcc3.3
> selected it compiles fine, into XDarwin, but this would overwrite
> Apple's installed /usr/X11R6 and /etc/X11 for new entries. I have not
> run into any conflicting packages yet so I am not sure, but is there a
> way that this is possible.

If you don't want portage to look out for conflicts, disable the feature
in /etc/make.conf.

> I just know what I read and I read that if a package tries to overwrite
> something Apple installed then it will fail.

This is true if collision-protect is enabled.

> BTW I am using 10.4.2 and
> Xcode 2.1 with gcc4 selected, so I will also have to read more into
> making ebuilds to know if you can use a gcc selector for 3.3 because the
> last timne I compiled XDarwin with 4.0 (yesterday) it didn't produce the
> XDarwin.app , and startx didn't do anything.

I do not believe the gentoo gcc select is available on our platform yet.
This may be tricky.

> Now in closing let me say that I am excited about doing what I can for
> this project, I love gentoo linux, so this was only the next logical
> step for me. Let me know how I can help

Glad to have you! Just watch the lists,
{gentoo-osx,gentoo-alt}@gentoo.org and file bugs when things work (or
don't) so that we know about them. And food. I'm fairly sure we all
can use food whenever it's available. :D

-Nick Dimiduk
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Oct 10, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Mike wrote:

> I want to make xorg-x11 available for mac-os or macos (whichever
> the keyword is) and with gcc3.3 selected it compiles fine, into
> XDarwin, but this would overwrite Apple's installed /usr/X11R6 and /
> etc/X11 for new entries. I have not run into any conflicting
> packages yet so I am not sure, but is there a way that this is
> possible.

If you're happy to let portage overwrite Apple-provided files (note:
dependencies may cause more files to be overwritten than you
anticipated) then you can do this by changing your profile to the
"Progressive" profile. This is easily done by setting the symlink /
etc/make.profile point to /usr/portage/profiles/default-darwin/macos/
progressive.

>
> I just know what I read and I read that if a package tries to
> overwrite something Apple installed then it will fail. BTW I am
> using 10.4.2 and Xcode 2.1 with gcc4 selected, so I will also have
> to read more into making ebuilds to know if you can use a gcc
> selector for 3.3 because the last timne I compiled XDarwin with 4.0
> (yesterday) it didn't produce the XDarwin.app , and startx didn't
> do anything.

I haven't tried this myself, but that doesn't sound like a normal
compiler-version problem. It sounds more like something was left out
of configure in the run with version 4.0.

>
> Now in closing let me say that I am excited about doing what I can
> for this project, I love gentoo linux, so this was only the next
> logical step for me. Let me know how I can help

My current understanding is that the only active developer working on
the progressive profile is Kito. If you're interested in testing for
progressive, we would certainly appreciate the help, since those of
us testing for the normal profiles can't test for both. Make sure
that when you test packages you also test their dependencies, and all
combinations of USE flags. If you're reasonable sure something works
(note: works != compiles), file a bug for the Progressive profile on
Bugzilla (bugs.gentoo.org).

Also, if you have any questions, feel free to send me (or anybody,
although I can't speak for others) an e-mail, or pop into the IRC
channel #gentoo-osx on freenode.

--Lina Pezzella
Gentoo Developer



--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Lina Pezzella wrote:
>
> On Oct 10, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Mike wrote:
>
>> I want to make xorg-x11 available for mac-os or macos (whichever the
>
> If you're happy to let portage overwrite Apple-provided files (note:
> dependencies may cause more files to be overwritten than you
> anticipated) then you can do this by changing your profile to the
> "Progressive" profile. This is easily done by setting the symlink
> /etc/make.profile point to
> /usr/portage/profiles/default-darwin/macos/progressive.

I think some people willl be interested in running Xorg instead of
AppleX11. Knowing how to compile it is nice for when we will be able to
install everything without collising like fink does.

>> 10.4.2 and Xcode 2.1 with gcc4 selected, so I will also have to read
>> more into making ebuilds to know if you can use a gcc selector for 3.3

In general we don't consider switching to the 3.3 compiler an option.
Everything must compile with the 4.0 compiler at the moment.

>> Now in closing let me say that I am excited about doing what I can for
>> this project, I love gentoo linux, so this was only the next logical
>> step for me. Let me know how I can help
>
> My current understanding is that the only active developer working on
> the progressive profile is Kito. If you're interested in testing for

I'd say there is noone working on the progressive profile at the moment.
As far as I know, Kito doesn't have a progressive setup as well.
Hopefully the progressive profile will be deprecated eventually.

> Also, if you have any questions, feel free to send me (or anybody,
> although I can't speak for others) an e-mail, or pop into the IRC
> channel #gentoo-osx on freenode.

Not that I object against personal convos, but if you have questions
that everyone may see, I'd suggest to mail over the mailing lists, as
anyone can respond and learn from and to your questions :)


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Oct 12, 2005, at 12:34 AM, Grobian wrote:

> Lina Pezzella wrote:
>
>> On Oct 10, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Mike wrote:
>>
>>> I want to make xorg-x11 available for mac-os or macos (whichever the
>>>
>> If you're happy to let portage overwrite Apple-provided files
>> (note: dependencies may cause more files to be overwritten than
>> you anticipated) then you can do this by changing your profile to
>> the "Progressive" profile. This is easily done by setting the
>> symlink /etc/make.profile point to /usr/portage/profiles/default-
>> darwin/macos/progressive.
>>
>
> I think some people willl be interested in running Xorg instead of
> AppleX11. Knowing how to compile it is nice for when we will be
> able to install everything without collising like fink does.

Efforts might be best spent on the modular xorg ebuilds, as I'm sure
the gentoo xorg maintainers will want to ditch the monolithic ebuilds
at some point down the road...although there might be too much voodoo
in getting XDarwin.app etc. installed properly for the gentoo xorg
maintainers to stomach, so perhaps xorg-darwin is a possibility...


>> My current understanding is that the only active developer working
>> on the progressive profile is Kito. If you're interested in
>> testing for
>>
>
> I'd say there is noone working on the progressive profile at the
> moment. As far as I know, Kito doesn't have a progressive setup as
> well. Hopefully the progressive profile will be deprecated eventually.

Not sure what gave you that idea...its the only profile for OS X I
find useful :p I know a few others are using it as well. Its
basically the proving ground for the portage base-system packages.
Its also whats used for Darwin development, as building Darwin system
packages requires a heavily modified OS X environment. I don't plan
on deprecating it at all, if you feel strongly otherwise, maybe you
should split the profiles up (again) and let the collision-protect
profiles that install packages to / (non-prefixed) live in profiles/
default-macos and leave profiles/default-darwin for, well, darwin.

--Kito

--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Kito wrote:

>
> On Oct 12, 2005, at 12:34 AM, Grobian wrote:
>
>> Lina Pezzella wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 10, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> I want to make xorg-x11 available for mac-os or macos (whichever the
>>>>
>>> If you're happy to let portage overwrite Apple-provided files
>>> (note: dependencies may cause more files to be overwritten than you
>>> anticipated) then you can do this by changing your profile to the
>>> "Progressive" profile. This is easily done by setting the symlink
>>> /etc/make.profile point to /usr/portage/profiles/default-
>>> darwin/macos/progressive.
>>>
>>
>> I think some people willl be interested in running Xorg instead of
>> AppleX11. Knowing how to compile it is nice for when we will be
>> able to install everything without collising like fink does.
>
>
> Efforts might be best spent on the modular xorg ebuilds, as I'm sure
> the gentoo xorg maintainers will want to ditch the monolithic ebuilds
> at some point down the road...although there might be too much voodoo
> in getting XDarwin.app etc. installed properly for the gentoo xorg
> maintainers to stomach, so perhaps xorg-darwin is a possibility...
>
>
>>> My current understanding is that the only active developer working
>>> on the progressive profile is Kito. If you're interested in testing
>>> for
>>>
>>
>> I'd say there is noone working on the progressive profile at the
>> moment. As far as I know, Kito doesn't have a progressive setup as
>> well. Hopefully the progressive profile will be deprecated eventually.
>
>
> Not sure what gave you that idea...its the only profile for OS X I
> find useful :p I know a few others are using it as well. Its
> basically the proving ground for the portage base-system packages.
> Its also whats used for Darwin development, as building Darwin system
> packages requires a heavily modified OS X environment. I don't plan
> on deprecating it at all, if you feel strongly otherwise, maybe you
> should split the profiles up (again) and let the collision-protect
> profiles that install packages to / (non-prefixed) live in profiles/
> default-macos and leave profiles/default-darwin for, well, darwin.
>
> --Kito
>
ok Kito, I know you, and for those whom I do not recognize, on the IRC
channel I am lost626. I know I have talked to a ReJ and an R2D2, and
robinp, but I think I may be forgetting a couple. I have tentatively
recruited a friend of mine to help who is just waiting for prefix
support in portage to use it. He is the one (genious) who "broke me in"
and "taught me the ropes" on the GNOME 2.10 fink port. He also figured
out how to hardcode some libraries in the pango package to get it to
compile right.

As for XDarwin It is my X11 of choice on OS X. As for getting it to
compile, there is no configure phase that I know of, so Lina, I am
confused there. actually the only time I have built it in a package
manager is yesterday on fink, where I just modified the package to make
-j3 World. otherwise I have done it myself with make World and sudo
make install, so I don't know what the problem with it would be.

And I am thinking it may be a compiler error because I have found a few
gcc4 patches for xorg, and I have also built the same version of xorg on
jaguar with gcc3.3. I tried compiling it myself without changing my gcc
select to 3.3 and as I stated there was no startx actions when run, and
no /Applications/XDarwin.app produced. I double checked the fink
package and even that has a gcc select 3 call in it, so that further
reinforced my thinking of it being a problem with gcc4. Though XDarwin
will most likely be easy I would only like to do it if no one else can,
or has a faster computer, since in OS X it takes me 7 hours or more to
compile it. I think I might be out of developing for OS X for a couple
days as I am working on a few Linux From Scratch systems, just to get
the real nitty gritty on a unix type platform.

I am also inclined to wait for the next release for prefix support which
opens up a few new tricks that I am familiar with. Also Tony asked me,
and I would like to know if there is an experimental portage out there
that has prefix support in it, that we could compile and play with, and
if not when the next release is due.

Mike
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 12:54:53AM -0500, Kito wrote:
> >I'd say there is noone working on the progressive profile at the
> >moment. As far as I know, Kito doesn't have a progressive setup as
> >well. Hopefully the progressive profile will be deprecated eventually.
>
> Not sure what gave you that idea...its the only profile for OS X I
> find useful :p I know a few others are using it as well. Its

Right, you confuse me, but that's easy ;) I probably have a different
definition of 'progressive'. But if you state you use it, you can
easily close the bugs on them, I suppose?

> basically the proving ground for the portage base-system packages.
> Its also whats used for Darwin development, as building Darwin system
> packages requires a heavily modified OS X environment. I don't plan
> on deprecating it at all, if you feel strongly otherwise, maybe you
> should split the profiles up (again) and let the collision-protect
> profiles that install packages to / (non-prefixed) live in profiles/
> default-macos and leave profiles/default-darwin for, well, darwin.

I would think that the current default-macos profiles should get
deprecated somehow in their current form and replaced by a prefix
thing...

For me, non-collision-protect stuff is dangerous/progressive. By using
a prefix, a lot of (if not all of) the collision-protect issues should
go away (like with fink for example), hence if you then still want
something progressive, it will mean something else to me like it means
to me now. It will be a misunderstanding from my side, but a separation
of alt/darwin and alt/macos might be approriate at that stage, since
progressive/darwin then clearly has not the sole purpose to extend and
enrich an Apple OSX install. Sounds more like progressive wants to
build a Darwin system (perhaps even kernel) with portage as package
manager. This is completely cool, but not my cup of tea, and a whole
new definition of progressive to me. So maybe we should start a new
thread on what progressive actually means/is? :)

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Grobian wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 12:54:53AM -0500, Kito wrote:
>
> > basically the proving ground for the portage base-system packages.
> > Its also whats used for Darwin development, as building Darwin system
> > packages requires a heavily modified OS X environment. I don't plan on
> > deprecating it at all, if you feel strongly otherwise, maybe you
> > should split the profiles up (again) and let the collision-protect
> > profiles that install packages to / (non-prefixed) live in profiles/
> > default-macos and leave profiles/default-darwin for, well, darwin.
>
> I would think that the current default-macos profiles should get
> deprecated somehow in their current form and replaced by a prefix
> thing...
>
> For me, non-collision-protect stuff is dangerous/progressive. By using
> a prefix, a lot of (if not all of) the collision-protect issues should
> go away (like with fink for example), hence if you then still want
> something progressive, it will mean something else to me like it means
> to me now. It will be a misunderstanding from my side, but a separation
> of alt/darwin and alt/macos might be approriate at that stage, since
> progressive/darwin then clearly has not the sole purpose to extend and
> enrich an Apple OSX install.

A progressive system should be able to use ppc-macos ebuilds. But, if the
ppc-macos people only want to support a pure Apple root domain (the one
with prefix /), then progressive work cannot come under alt/macos, and has
to be a seperate alt/darwin project with its own "ppc-darwin" keyword.

But, before alt/macos abandons support for an alt/darwin root prefix, it
is worth noting that package.provided works best if you are only injecting
darwin packages. That argument will hopefully become less relevant once
you can dep on vendor packages.

> Sounds more like progressive wants to build a Darwin system (perhaps
> even kernel) with portage as package manager. This is completely cool,
> but not my cup of tea, and a whole new definition of progressive to me.
> So maybe we should start a new thread on what progressive actually
> means/is? :)

IMHO trying to define progressive or conservative would be futile until we
get to play with the portage rewrite (domains and prefixes).

-f
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 06:00:25PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> A progressive system should be able to use ppc-macos ebuilds. But, if the
> ppc-macos people only want to support a pure Apple root domain (the one
> with prefix /), then progressive work cannot come under alt/macos, and has
> to be a seperate alt/darwin project with its own "ppc-darwin" keyword.

Sounds like it...

> IMHO trying to define progressive or conservative would be futile until we
> get to play with the portage rewrite (domains and prefixes).

Not completely agree on this. It's nice for me to know what the others
consider 'progressive' to mean, as I now see it as a "shut-up with your
collision-protect crap and just do it" profile, which I am for sure not
interested in, nor see the use of at the moment. I like to see the big
picture of things where possible.

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Grobian wrote:

> > IMHO trying to define progressive or conservative would be futile
> > until we get to play with the portage rewrite (domains and prefixes).
>
> Not completely agree on this. It's nice for me to know what the others
> consider 'progressive' to mean, as I now see it as a "shut-up with your
> collision-protect crap and just do it" profile, which I am for sure not
> interested in, nor see the use of at the moment. I like to see the big
> picture of things where possible.

If you take the long view, and assume that we will get prefixes sooner
than later, then devs should be aiming for _maximum_ collisions, since
from a darwin point of view, that means better interoperability with
Apple's open source work.

If you take a compromise, you might end up with fewer collisions in the
short term, but you make it harder for Gentoo/Darwin and "progressive" to
interoperate with Gentoo/macos and Apple.

That is why I argued against moving the perl executable, for example. And
it is also why I argued for stabling packages with collisions. I was
simply taking the long view, and trying to avoid rework for the
gentoo/darwin project.

As for the "conservative" profile, it doesn't have many users, and will
not have until we get prefixes, so why optimise for "collision-protect"?

-f
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:00:32PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> If you take the long view, and assume that we will get prefixes sooner
> than later, then devs should be aiming for _maximum_ collisions, since
> from a darwin point of view, that means better interoperability with
> Apple's open source work.

That simply requires people to have machines for this. I don't have
machines floating around, and I'm fore sure not willing to buy hardware
or make my box into an even more unstable thing than it is already right
now (try to attach an iPod to it, and it completely goes nuts for
examplei, yeah, it's just Windows(tm)(r)). From a managerial point of
view, your note sounds correct to me, but considering the resources,
it's not simply done. Unless after this mail two or three people step
forward that are willing to do this maximum collision stuff.

> If you take a compromise, you might end up with fewer collisions in the
> short term, but you make it harder for Gentoo/Darwin and "progressive" to
> interoperate with Gentoo/macos and Apple.

We cannot control collisions, at least not the real ones. They are
there and doing something about it, usually results in having more work
to do once we get a prefix.

> That is why I argued against moving the perl executable, for example. And
> it is also why I argued for stabling packages with collisions. I was
> simply taking the long view, and trying to avoid rework for the
> gentoo/darwin project.

I don't like to solve perl for the current situation. It is typically
something that should be dealt with in a prefix. If someone wants to
install it on a progressive box, please do so.

> As for the "conservative" profile, it doesn't have many users, and will
> not have until we get prefixes, so why optimise for "collision-protect"?

Given the reponses and signals I see, there are even less progressive
users, so why optimise for them for now and screw my box to try and
stable those ebuilds? If someone else wants to do it, fine with me, but
it simply seems not to be an option, as noone wants to do this.

I simply only want to keyword those things that for instance Dirk now
points out that already works, and probably also will work in a prefix.
You can call it lazy or short sighted, but to me it's just a matter of
resources, and especially hardware resources I don't have. If I'd have
access to a machine I could screw by installing for instance GCC via
portage, then I'd try it out to see if it compiles and eventually
keyword and mask it. I simply don't have it!

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Grobian wrote:

> > As for the "conservative" profile, it doesn't have many users, and
> > will not have until we get prefixes, so why optimise for
> > "collision-protect"?
>
> Given the reponses and signals I see, there are even less progressive
> users, so why optimise for them for now and screw my box to try and
> stable those ebuilds? If someone else wants to do it, fine with me, but
> it simply seems not to be an option, as noone wants to do this.
>

Don't screw your Mac OS X box! Use a chroot for progressive.

-f
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:52:55PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> Don't screw your Mac OS X box! Use a chroot for progressive.

Where are the docs, howtos, dos and dont's?!? :p

Can't do what I don't even know the existence of :)

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Grobian wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:52:55PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> > Don't screw your Mac OS X box! Use a chroot for progressive.
>
> Where are the docs, howtos, dos and dont's?!? :p

This is Kito's work (I haven't tried it myself...)

http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Panther_Chroot

-f

>
> Can't do what I don't even know the existence of :)
>
>
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:12:29PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> > Where are the docs, howtos, dos and dont's?!? :p
>
> This is Kito's work (I haven't tried it myself...)
>
> http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Panther_Chroot

Gee... thanks. I'm going to try this as soon as I get home.

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Oct 12, 2005, at 6:43 AM, Grobian wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:12:29PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
>
>>> Where are the docs, howtos, dos and dont's?!? :p

wiki HOWTOS only at this point, no point in making official docs for
things that are in flux IMHO.

>>>
>>
>> This is Kito's work (I haven't tried it myself...)
>>
>> http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Panther_Chroot

http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Gentoo_on_MAC_OSX_Bootstrap is probably
more useful.

Talks a little about the $PORTDIR/scripts/bootstrap-darwin.sh script,
which can automate the process of spitting out a chroot, as well as
boostrap both standard and progressive machines. I have some local
updates for better Tiger compatibility and clean up etc, just need to
test them a little more before I commit them. Any help is welcome.

--Kito

--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Oct 12, 2005, at 2:09 AM, Mike S wrote:

>
> I am also inclined to wait for the next release for prefix support
> which opens up a few new tricks that I am familiar with. Also Tony
> asked me, and I would like to know if there is an experimental
> portage out there that has prefix support in it, that we could
> compile and play with, and if not when the next release is due.

Thanks to Brian Ferring, Michael Haubi, and a few others, last night
I was able to properly bootstrap portage in a prefix for the first
time...WOOT! No ebuilds that do anything useful, and many things are
broken, but its a start. I hope to release a stage0 tarball for OS X
devs very shortly, assuming I can keep Real Life and Work at bay for
a bit :p

Once we have a tarball to start from, there will either be a prefixed
portage svn branch in the mainline module, or possibly in the alt
repo, thats up to the portage devs as to how they want to handle
that. Adding prefix support is anything but trivial, so the patch is
rather large...it will be some work to stay inline with upstream for
sure.

You can find some things here in the meantime:

http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/portage/prefix/

But its not trivial to get it going, and no docs or anything yet....

Also Mike: you might also pop into #gentoo-alt, #gentoo-portage and
peruse the gentoo-alt@ and gentoo-portage-dev@ ML archives, as the OS
X team isn't the only ones with a vested interest in prefixes...
Theres a couple people working on it for things like aix as well.

--Kito

--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Kito wrote:
> Thanks to Brian Ferring, Michael Haubi, and a few others, last night I
> was able to properly bootstrap portage in a prefix for the first
> time...WOOT!

w00t!!!!!!!!!!!

> No ebuilds that do anything useful, and many things are
> broken, but its a start. I hope to release a stage0 tarball for OS X
> devs very shortly, assuming I can keep Real Life and Work at bay for a
> bit :p

Real Life?!? What the hack is that? :p


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Kito wrote:
> http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Gentoo_on_MAC_OSX_Bootstrap is probably
> more useful.
>
> Talks a little about the $PORTDIR/scripts/bootstrap-darwin.sh script,
> which can automate the process of spitting out a chroot, as well as
> boostrap both standard and progressive machines. I have some local
> updates for better Tiger compatibility and clean up etc, just need to
> test them a little more before I commit them. Any help is welcome.

I have the impression it doesn't really work for Tiger. I can't run the
bootstrap script inside the chroot (there is no uname) and once I leave
the chroot (to copy the file ;) ) I can't get in anymore. The dmg
appeared to be mounted on /mnt/gentoo and I had to unmount it because
hdiutil didn't like it. It wasn't mounted on my desktop anyway. Finder
can't open the dmg. ditto(1) doesn't seem to be able to cope with
copying files either, so I switched back to cp -R which worked like a
charm for me...


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Oct 12, 2005, at 12:42 PM, Grobian wrote:




>
>
> Kito wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Gentoo_on_MAC_OSX_Bootstrap is
>> probably more useful.
>> Talks a little about the $PORTDIR/scripts/bootstrap-darwin.sh
>> script, which can automate the process of spitting out a chroot,
>> as well as boostrap both standard and progressive machines. I have
>> some local updates for better Tiger compatibility and clean up
>> etc, just need to test them a little more before I commit them.
>> Any help is welcome.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I have the impression it doesn't really work for Tiger. I can't
> run the bootstrap script inside the chroot (there is no uname) and
> once I leave the chroot (to copy the file ;) ) I can't get in
> anymore. The dmg appeared to be mounted on /mnt/gentoo and I had
> to unmount it because hdiutil didn't like it. It wasn't mounted on
> my desktop anyway. Finder can't open the dmg. ditto(1) doesn't
> seem to be able to cope with copying files either, so I switched
> back to cp -R which worked like a charm for me...
>
>
>

Yeah, like I said, the version in cvs hasn't been given Tiger love.
Many of the install pkgs have changed, so it will need to be fixed.
Feel free to update it.





--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

>
> On Oct 12, 2005, at 12:42 PM, Grobian wrote:


>> Finder can't open the dmg. ditto(1) doesn't seem to be able to
>> cope with copying files either, so I switched back to cp -R which
>> worked like a charm for me...
>>

Now that I think about it, I think thats on purpose. Finder mounts
disk images with perms disabled by default, which would break most
things in the chroot. IIRC the script also mounts volfs and devfs in
the chroot which can only be done by root/admin.
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Kito wrote:
>>> Finder can't open the dmg. ditto(1) doesn't seem to be able to cope
>>> with copying files either, so I switched back to cp -R which worked
>>> like a charm for me...
>
> Now that I think about it, I think thats on purpose. Finder mounts disk
> images with perms disabled by default, which would break most things in
> the chroot. IIRC the script also mounts volfs and devfs in the chroot
> which can only be done by root/admin.

This was a note on the howto where it says to copy over the pkg files
from the CD and XCode Tools. I had to do it with cp -R since ditto only
used a lot of CPU cycles and finally ended up writing everything to the
same file or something. Not really useful.

I can't toy with it any further as I decided to give my main system a
reinstall since I gave booting from my iPod a shot after a (clean)
reboot this afternoon and surprice surprice, it just booted fine off the
iPod proving to me the firewire stuff is hardware wise completely OK.
(The night before it caused me headaches and hard reboots again because
it just 'hangs' and stalls the complete system, making the iPod
unmountable, etc.)

Then software update on the iPod showed all kinds of security updates
and stuff that my main disk didn't get, even not when explicitly asking
for updates, so I guess I managed to borken a Tiger install... I never
succeeded in breaking my Jaguar install :/

So I'm waiting for the lengthy install phase to complete and ohw crap,
now I remember what I forgot... I didn't backup my system dirs, so I
have a fresh Gentoo setup to go through. Maybe I just only want the
chroots to be sure I won't screw anything again.

I'd like to have your Tiger script Kito ;)
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On 10/12/05, Kito <kito@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Thanks to Brian Ferring, Michael Haubi, and a few others, last night
> I was able to properly bootstrap portage in a prefix for the first
> time...WOOT! No ebuilds that do anything useful, and many things are
> broken, but its a start. I hope to release a stage0 tarball for OS X
> devs very shortly, assuming I can keep Real Life and Work at bay for
> a bit :p

Is this using an early 'new major' version of portage? Does this mean
there is hope that the next major version of portage that is released
will happen "soon" and really support prefixed installs?!?!?

As soon as prefixed installs really work, I owe coreutils some
testing. Just imagine...I could become a gentoo-osx _user_!

~ Nathan

--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list