Package delivery without XCode

Craig Treleaven ctreleaven at
Mon May 18 14:11:37 PDT 2015

At 11:56 AM -0400 5/18/15, Brandon Allbery wrote:
>On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Craig Treleaven 
><<mailto:ctreleaven at>ctreleaven at> wrote:
>OTOH, someone posted some information several weeks ago explaining 
>how to determine if that licence conflict really applies or not. 
>(Involves inspecting library linkages, as I recall.)  I get the 
>impression that our current policy is quite conservative and that a 
>number of packages (many?) may actually qualify for binary 
>distribution with some analysis and verification.
>But someone needs to put in that time --- and time is always a 
>problem in a volunteer-run project.

Understood, I'm trying to gauge whether there is interest in taking 
MacPorts in this direction.  Right now, as I see it, MacPorts is 
pretty much geared to coders and sophisticated users (system/network 
administrators, etc).  There exists a wider group of folks who just 
want to run a specific application or two (say Darktable and Gimp, 
just for instance).  If such users could just install "Pallet-lite" 
and then be able to install any of a few dozen major open-source 
applications, that might be pretty popular.

In some ways, it might be the Mac App Store for open source.


More information about the macports-dev mailing list