Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Businesses Operating Systems Unix Apple

DarwinPorts Now Available as a .dmg 64

Posted by timothy from the what's-your-dmg-heather dept.
MitsuMirage writes "From Apple's ADC mailing list: 'OpenDarwin.org has released DarwinPorts 1.0 to provide an easy way to install various open source software products on the Darwin OS family (OpenDarwin, Mac OS X and Darwin). Version 1.0 features about 2500 completed ports.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DarwinPorts Now Available as a .dmg More

DarwinPorts Now Available as a .dmg

Comments Filter:

  • the real headline (Score:5, Funny)

    by mmkkbb ( 816035 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @04:01PM (#12411539) Homepage Journal
    They are finally offering something that's NOT straight from CVS.
    • They are finally offering something that's NOT straight from CVS.

      Here! Here! I took a look at it right after I got my powerbook, and said "CVS? Fuck that shit!", and promptly went with Fink. CVS is not a package management tool.
      • OK:

        1.) It's "Hear, hear!"
        2.) Darwinports doesn't pull anything from CVS once you've instaled the manager.
      • No, it's not. You check out the package manager source or the port skeleton files. The latter being analogous to cvsuping your ports in FreeBSD (no coincidence since DarwinPorts is Jordan Hubbard's doing) or "emerge rsync" with Gentoo's Portage.

  • /.'d already? (Score:2, Informative)

    by tweakiegeek ( 691351 )
    it's only been nine minutes, and it looks like their server melted down... maybe it's just me, I certainly hope so!
  • Warning: mysql_pconnect(): Too many connections in /Library/WebServer/Documents/projects/darwinports/ includes/functions.inc on line 12
    Can't connect to db!

    I would've thought that anyone who's interested in darwin ports would not be too upset about grabbing it from CVS. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but where's the story?

  • Shameless plug for pkgsrc... (Score:5, Informative)

    by derinax ( 93566 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @04:59PM (#12412519)
    I've been using pkgsrc on OS X for years now, since 10.2. Works great, any occasional errors are cleared up quickly after a post to the mailing list. But I'm a NetBSD guy, so there's my bias.

    http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/pkgsrc/ [netbsd.org]

    Pkgsrc is superior to Fink, for certain-- I'm not familiar with Darwinports and how it stacks up. It's just a different brand of the same strawberry ice cream, I imagine.

    Mmm... ice cream. I installed QT just yesterday (so I can compile TyEditor) by simply typing 'make update'... No fuss, no muss.
    • Sounds interesting, but not interesting enough for me to do my own research. So, pray tell, what is it that makes pkgsrc superior to Fink?
      • In my experience? Using a curses-based menu to select packages I wanted was an incredible drag. Additionally, last time I used Fink (I have it installed on one of my OS X boxes) it had a dependency error that forced me to delete all Fink bits and rebuild everything.

        cd /usr/pkgsrc/x11/qt3
        make update

        is much, much easier.

        • Fink interfaces (Score:3, Informative)

          by Kaseijin ( 766041 )
          Using a curses-based menu to select packages I wanted was an incredible drag.
          Wow, I had forgotten that dselect even existed. The Fink base install includes apt-get and another command-line utility, fink. FinkCommander [sourceforge.net] is an Aqua GUI.
    • hmmm... from netbsd.org [netbsd.org]:

      You cannot use a HFS+ file system for pkgsrc, because pkgsrc currently requires the filesystem to be case-sensitive, and HFS+ is not.

      Sounds like being superior comes at a price...
    • I decided to give pkgsrc a try.

      I'm not sure what's up, but it's really falling down - granted, I have some problems with unstable packages in fink, but I wouldn't have expected pkgsrc committed packages to fail to build.

      Both ruby18-curses-1.8.2nb1 and libaudiofile failed to compile for me.

      Is it just me, or is it generally better than this? Two failures out of three packages I wanted to build is bad!

  • What is the relationship with Fink? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) ( 613870 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @05:15PM (#12412745) Journal
    Are they competing? Are they interoperable? Is one better than the other?

  • Inevitable "fink vs" post (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WasterDave ( 20047 ) <davep@z e d k e p.com> on Monday May 02, 2005 @05:35PM (#12412979)
    So, can someone in the know tell me why I might want to use darwin ports over fink?

    A little background: I switched from FreeBSD to Linux (Debian) a few years back purely for the ease of patching. I don't go for this compile from source shit at all and would far rather be receiving the same binaries as everyone else in 1/100th the time. So when I heard that the FreeBSD ports concept was being moved to Apple I was, like, "blah" and continued using Fink. A bit.

    Why on earth would I want to use darwin ports? I just don't get it.

    Dave

    • I guess some people just need to feel "marketed" to. *shrug*

      You've already cogently described why you are an ideal Fink user, and disavowed Darwinport's (and pkgsrc's) primary methodology. So you want someone to send you a glossy pamphlet, or something? ;^)

      If Fink works for you, have a party. If it doesn't work, look for something else that does. Fink doesn't work for me, so I got behind something else.
    • Fink's nmap is still at 3.75 if you compile from source, while Darwinports has the latest (3.81). This was enough to convince me to use Darwinports.

    • Re:Inevitable "fink vs" post (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @07:05PM (#12414046) Homepage
      You probably should use both at this point.

      1) Darwin ports has a lot more stuff on it than fink.
      2) Darwin ports is more up to date (in general) than fink
      3) Darwin ports allow you to throw more compile options at the packages (fink doesn't support this)

      OTOH:

      1) Fink seems to still work a little better
      2) Fink seems to have more important stuff
      • >1) Darwin ports has a lot more stuff on it than >fink.
        This is plain wrong. Fink currently sports over 4800 complete packages (this includes the variants). This only holds true for stable and binary packages.

        2) Darwin ports is more up to date (in general) than fink

        This is also plain wrong. The Fink CVS sees various updates daily. Of course some packages are more out to date, simply because we have more packages and there are not proportinally more maintainers.
        This only holds true for stable/binary p

        • Re:Inevitable "fink vs" post (Score:4, Informative)

          by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @02:49PM (#12423150) Homepage
          You seem a bit defensive. I think I was actually pretty fair. In any case.

          I don't know how you are doing your counting, I'm not sure what the results for darwin would be if you were to use a similar method. Darwin ports isn't binary and they don't have minor variants so many of the seperate packages on fink wouldn't be seperate on darwinports. That being the case lets look at a few random examples:

          Database fink [sourceforge.net], darwin [opendarwin.org].

          Editors darwin [opendarwin.org] fink [sourceforge.net]

          Development darwin [opendarwin.org] fink [sourceforge.net].

          I think my comment is fair. The fink list is loaded with slight variations while the darwin ports list contains more elements which are genuinely different. And darwin even has more catagories.

          _________________________

          Both projects are active. But again if I look at actual packages I tend to find the darwin version is more up to date than the fink version. Are you disagreeing and if so how would you propose we test?

    • If you're waiting for precompiled binaries in the form of packages from your distribution's vendor, you're getting them long after the source for those binaries became available. Updating from source is always faster than waiting for a binary package.

      Though you are correct about getting the same binaries as everyone else.
  • This topic has been up on the main /. page for 100 minutes and there have been only 15 comments.

    This presumably shows that no-one actually uses Macs.

    (P.S. I'm a Mac user)

  • Shoe horns (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @05:48PM (#12413145) Journal
    All of these systems seem to be trying to shoe-horn UNIX-style packages onto OS X, which seems to be to be incredibly messy. When I compile any UNIX software on OS X, I set the prefix to /opt/{package name}, and install each package in its own subdirectory of /opt (and I have a section in my .bashrc which adds /opt/*/bin to my path). This way, I can deal with UNIX software in exactly the same way as OS X applications. I would like to see UNIX software for OS X distributed as .tar.bz files that expand to a single directory that can be placed anywhere desired. Ideally, I would also like dependencies to be checked at run-time, and automatically fetched if required.
    • This is nearly impossible - think about dependencies like some games needing libsdl or some X11-app needing, err... X11.
      How are they supposed to find the libs, if you can place them anywhere, if deployed at all?
      And what about software that relies on being put in a specific directory? Like openmotif insisting on living in /usr/X11?
      • How do you do it? I dunno. How does MacOS X do it? That way seems pretty darn bulletproof.

      • Re:Shoe horns (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
        The Darwin linker is pretty advanced, and has no problems at all with simple features like modifying the library search path. Also, OS X has had a searchfs[1] system call which, even pre-spotlight, was capable of finding files incredibly fast. I would:
        1. Check whether the libraries exist at their default path. If so, run.
        2. If not, use searchfs or spotlight to find them. If this succeeds, store the result, and launch.
        3. Otherwise, fetch them from the Internet, install, and then run. [1] Documentation (man

  • Finally everything in one directory (Score:4, Insightful)

    by doc modulo ( 568776 ) on Monday May 02, 2005 @06:35PM (#12413721)
    I'm a beginning FreeBSD user and I've discovered that the Unix way is both smart and dumb.

    It's smart because it works. It's stupid because it's not user friendly. And often it doesn't work.

    FOR FUCK'S SAKE, just because you old-timers are used to making a drawing by putting pieces of graphite on paper with a microscope, doesn't mean it's easy to learn when you're new to it. Build a pencil. It's not as efficient but it's the right time for it.

    The biggest problem with installing on a FreeBSD system is that you have to KNOW and REMEMBER so much. There's so many different ways of "installing"/putting files all over the place that you can't use FreeBSD as an operating system once you've read the The Unix and Internet Fundamentals HOWTO [ibiblio.org] and the FreeBSD Handbook [freebsd.org]

    No, that's not enough, it's never enough. There's always an exception to how things are done normally. This package can't install, that port needs gmake instead of make, how do you find out? Not by reading the manual or the installation instructions but because you googled for the error message and someone somewhere had the same problem, and google just happened to index it. It vaguely points you into the right direction and by having above average computer knowledge and above average analytical skills are you able to figure things out MAYBE.

    So many tens of thousands of smart people must have stopped using FreeBSD because of all this stupid unusable crap, such a loss for the community.

    On the other hand, as I understand it. MacOS X, Darwin and OpenDarwin install/dock programs in one directory. THIS IS GREAT!

    Granted, I'm new to UNIX but I still think this is the way to go. Off the top of my head I can think of several reasons:
    - When you delete the dir, you KNOW all the files of that program are gone. No "uninstalling" procedure that can go wrong.
    - It's easier to create a fine-grained security fence around a single directory than multiple files spread out all over the system.
    - Everything is a file, isn't that the UNIX way? If you use the traditional package/ports way of program installation you need to rely on the "magical package manager wizard program" to help you find everything back and delete it. ON THE OTHER HAND with "a program is a directory" you'll have the peace of mind and purity of how things work in the real world. A tool in the real world is mostly also an enclosed system, a thing. PEACE OF MIND PEOPLE? Who isn't frustrated sometimes by PCs?

    As I said, just from the top of my head.

    I predict that all the traditionalists will have all kinds of reasons that the old ways have to be held on to forever at all costs, but look at the end-result of this. Look at the situation from afar. All new power users of non-Darwin are frustrated by installing programs. I wasn't able to figure out FreeBSD on my own, I needed lots and lots of documentation, among a lot of other things. I WAS able to figure out Windows on my own and I probably won't have trouble with my future Mac. The only problem with Mac OSX is that Mac hardware doesn't have ECC memory, except the server line and Mac OSX isn't copyleft, so in theory they can become evil like MS.

    At the moment I need FreeBSD for it's jails. I just have 1 PC so I need a jailed FBSD as a router. However, when I get another PC I WILL switch to something else which has application directories. The most usable operating system in existance at the moment proved it's a good thing.

    Can somebody tell me if there's a FreeBSD or OpenBSD fork which uses application dirs which runs on i386. Maybe even something which has jails as well?

    Thank you very much in advance, I will do research on my own but as I said, I'm new and I would like to save some time with your help.

    I also hope all the old-schoolers are not too stuck in their ways to agree with me about application dirs even just a little bit (think about the end result).
    • - When you delete the dir, you KNOW all the files of that program are gone. No "uninstalling" procedure that can go wrong.

      Well, except for all of those pesky preference files in each user's directory.

    • When you delete the dir, you KNOW all the files of that program are gone. No "uninstalling" procedure that can go wrong.

      Except for.. you know.. all the files that are created outside of that directory. Usually scattered in your /Library and your home directories.

      Plus there's no uninstaller for the stuff that uses installers in OSX (like xcode)

  • Try Gentoo for Mac OS X (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's the best I have worked with thus far. Much more up to date software. http://www.metadistribution.org/macos/ [metadistribution.org]
  • Does someone know if you can use DarwinPorts with Tiger? They still list 10.2/10.3 as system requirements and I was not able to find any relevant Tiger information on their site.
    • I've managed to get pretty much everything I want compiled and running under Tiger -- lynx, wget, lame, etc. Some things throw compile or ./configure errors, but it might be the new-fangled GCC 4.0, or I've got something else set up incorrectly...

  • What's a battle? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ockegheim ( 808089 )

    You should add /opt/local/bin (or wherever you chose to install DarwinPorts) to your shell's path.

    If you are using Mac OS X 10.3 "Panther" or a Bourne shell (bash, zsh), add the following line to your     ~/.profile:

    export PATH=$PATH:/opt/local/bin

    This is exactly the sort of thing I come up against each and every time I get excited about running Unix software on my Mac. I fear the gap between my knowledge of Unix basics, and what I need to know to ever do anything useful will never be bridged.

Slashdot Top Deals

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Close