DarwinPorts Now Available as a .dmg 64
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.'"
the real headline (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the real headline (Score:2)
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.
Re:the real headline (Score:2)
1.) It's "Hear, hear!"
2.) Darwinports doesn't pull anything from CVS once you've instaled the manager.
Re:the real headline (Score:2)
/.'d already? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:/.'d already? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:/.'d already? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:/.'d already? (Score:2)
Slashdotted (Score:1)
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)
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.
Re:Shameless plug for pkgsrc... (Score:1)
Re:Shameless plug for pkgsrc... (Score:2)
cd
make update
is much, much easier.
Fink interfaces (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shameless plug for pkgsrc... (Score:1, Informative)
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...
Re:Shameless plug for pkgsrc... (Score:3, Informative)
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-bugs/2004/07/
Re:Shameless plug for pkgsrc... (Score:5, Informative)
Because all pkgsrc bits reside on the
Re:Shameless plug for pkgsrc... (Score:1)
Re:Shameless plug for pkgsrc... (Score:2)
Since
Again, the strength is that when you unmount the
Re:Shameless plug for pkgsrc... (Score:1)
Re:Shameless plug for pkgsrc... (Score:2)
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)
DANGER! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No darwin ports is hostile (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No darwin ports is hostile (Score:5, Informative)
Seems like you totally confused GNU-Darwin [gnu-darwin.org] (which hosed your system) with OpenDarwin [opendarwin.org] and it's DarwinPorts [darwinports.org] project.
I'm mistaken (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is relation between Gnu-darwin and opendar (Score:2, Insightful)
Its much like Linus Torvalds vs. Richard Stallmann.
Inevitable "fink vs" post (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Inevitable "fink vs" post (Score:2)
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.
Re:Inevitable "fink vs" post (Score:2)
Re:Inevitable "fink vs" post (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Inevitable "fink vs" post (Score:2, Informative)
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)
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?
Re:Inevitable "fink vs" post (Score:2)
Though you are correct about getting the same binaries as everyone else.
This could be a record .... (Score:1)
This presumably shows that no-one actually uses Macs.
(P.S. I'm a Mac user)
Re:This could be a record .... (Score:2)
Re:This could be a record .... (Score:1)
Re:This could be a record .... (Score:1)
Shoe horns (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Shoe horns (Score:1, Redundant)
DarwinPorts does the ugly shoe-horning cludge. Fink is elegant.
No, DarwinPorts installs in
DarwinPorts is more elegant than Fink (I think you've confused DarwinPorts with someone else who I won't name here). Fink is simpler to use, though, but being available as a
Re:Shoe horns (Score:1)
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
Re:Shoe horns (Score:1)
Re:Shoe horns (Score:3, Interesting)
Finally everything in one directory (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re:Finally everything in one directory (Score:1)
Well, except for all of those pesky preference files in each user's directory.
Re:Finally everything in one directory (Score:2)
Except for.. you know.. all the files that are created outside of that directory. Usually scattered in your
Plus there's no uninstaller for the stuff that uses installers in OSX (like xcode)
Try Gentoo for Mac OS X (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Try Gentoo for Mac OS X (Score:2)
What have you done to that mac ? (Score:1, Troll)
What have you done to that mac?
On my home network, I can copy to my old G3/400 iMac across a slow (11 megabit) wireless link at 50 meg a minute. A local copy takes a few seconds.
please don't feed the troll (Score:2)
Compatibility with Tiger? (Score:1)
Re:Compatibility with Tiger? (Score:1)
What's a battle? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.