GSoC idea for the binary issue (yet again)
fisksvett at gmail.com
Mon Mar 28 06:43:35 PDT 2011
Mar 28, 2011 kl. 8:52 AM skrev Joshua Root:
> On 2011-3-28 14:44 , Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Erik Österlund wrote:
>>> Issue 1
>>> The first issue is that a command for installing binaries without
>>> requiring Xcode or the ports tree is wanted, so that users can easily
>>> install binaries without needing a whole bunch of dependencies. The
>>> suggestion is to create a new command, which is what I want to do
>>> during the summer. This command, let's call it pkg, will install
>>> binaries only, without the need for the whole ports environment (ports
>>> tree and Xcode, but still registry and TCL).
>>> Note here that a TCL interpreter is still needed because of the
>>> scripts in the Portfiles! There are as I see it 3 options.
>> There are a lot of things you seem to be doing to avoid installing a
>> copy of Ports, when I actually have to wonder why this is so important.
>> The entire "ports tree", if you don't actually include the build
>> recipes in dports, is less than 10MB.
> I'm pretty sure that by "ports tree" he means dports/. Avoiding that
> would be a win, as it does take a noticeable amount of time to initially
> download it with rsync. (People have filed bugs because they thought the
> installer had hung.)
> - Josh
Yes, that's right. As you say, I want to avoid it as it is not necessary if it is part of the binary archive.
And MacPorts.framework should work without it if I'm right. Otherwise I can modify it to work without them.
I just want the stuff to access the registry and run TCL scripts, the rest is unnecessary. This requirement is quite small I believe.
More information about the macports-dev