On Jul 7, 2006, at 3:07 AM, Ben Fowler wrote:
On 07/07/06, Jon A. Cruz <jon@...18...> wrote:
The equivalent would be to that of being on Ubuntu or Debian and dropping all use of the stock tools like apt, dpkg, etc., and pulling down source tarballs for everything, including all the way to X11 itself. (and not in the nice Gentoo way either).
I agree with that assessment, but to try be balanced, surely this was the fallback position when we started with fink in the first place? It is not much different from what the fink folk do, though they have a wider audience.
Jon, Ben,
My $0.02: I've been working on this problem myself recently:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php? func=detail&aid=1517872&group_id=93438&atid=604308
The major discovery I've made so far is that a number of packages we rely upon in fink are already present in Mac OS X, and a number of additional packages that fink relies on are obviated by moving to native pango, cairo, and GTK+ . Mac OS X already provides freetype, X11, libxml, libjpeg, libtiff, libpng etcetera as part of the sdk, and all of the dependencies on gtk-doc and the associated packages are unnecessary when you just build GTK+ without doc. So saying that you'd have to pull down source tarballs for everything is an overstatement, we're talking about a maximum of 18-20 with all of inkscape's features enabled.
When I first looked at the problem, I thought that it was going to be a major headache getting this stuff built from source. Once I'd taken away everything that wasn't necessary, and seen hints at further simplifications that could be made, I was left with 12 source packages to build (not including lcms, inkboard, and gnome-vfs).
As for maintaining builds with fink, it's certainly possible to submit .info files into the fink/unstable tree.
--David