MacPorts 1.5.0 and binary packaging / New improved Guide

[markd at macports.org]

Anders F Björklund <afb at macports.org> on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 at 5:41 AM
-0800 wrote:
>There are some common typos in it like "OS X" (Mac OS X) and "Xwindows"
>(X Window System) and it should probably be less Apple/Mac OS X centric
>(i.e. should mention explicitly that 2.1-2.5 applies to Mac OS X, and 
>say
>something instead of "Apple-supplied" - like vendor-supplied, etc 
>etc...)
>
>It would also be nice if it could mention "open source and free 
>software",
>instead of just saying "open source Unix software" and not mentioning 
>GNU ?
>This is IMHO also another reason why it is important to get License 
>metadata
>into the ports, as it is now you'll have to dig through 
>homepages/licenses.
>
>You can look at the old guide for some hints, it uses "third party 
>software"
>and has much more info on the common heritage with the BSD 
>Ports/collections.
>A "MacPorts for people used to *BSD Ports" section might even be a good 
>idea.
>Besides regular Mac OS X, MacPorts is also usable on FreeBSD (with 
>GNUstep).

All good points.  I haven't yet got to that level of detail yet, but I
agree with you it needs to be done.  I'll hang onto these suggestions and
address them the best I can after getting all the raw data I can from the
old guide.

>I will try to be of some assistance about those, we can take either in
>the regular guide xml or if you're doing some kind of parallel guide
>we can discuss it here on these mailing lists or on some Wiki page...
>
>
>As it is now we have two kinds of binaries: ARCHIVES (.tgz, .tbz, etc)
>and PACKAGES (.pkg, .rpm, etc). Eventually these might both be able
>to use the same XAR archive, but as of now they're still separate...
>
>The archives are created with "port archive" or by enabling archivemode.
>They can (confusingly!) be found under /opt/local/var/macports/packages
>with subdirectories for each platform (e.g. darwin) and arch (e.g. i386)
>
>The packages are created with something like "port pkg" or "port rpm"
>and are found in either the work directory or /opt/local/src/macports.
>Since .pkg is a dir bundle, it is converted to one file with "port dmg".
>
>The main differences is that the archives are used within the port 
>system,
>to avoid having to rebuild a port from source, and that the packages are
>used outside the port system, without even needing MacPorts installed.
>
>
>Besides the binary packages, we also have source packages. These consist
>of the Portfile and all needed files/ (patches and other supporting 
>files),
>and they come in either ".portpkg" (XAR) or ".nosrc.rpm" (SRPM) flavors.
>
>Normally there is not much need to use source packages, since the binary
>packages can be built directly from the ports tree (whether rsync or 
>svn)
>but they are useful for port submissions or for storage of older 
>versions.
>
>In order to build a new binary from a source package, all the 
>corresponding
>distfiles are also needed. Normally these are only kept around as 
>checksums,
>but can be mirrored locally - or even included in the case of 
>".src.rpm".
>
>When building packages, all dependencies must be installed from ports or
>archives - installations made from packages do not help and must be 
>redone.
>This is because the binary packages are *not* registered within 
>MacPorts.
>
>
>Hopefully that should be enough to start, and let me know if I am 
>mistaken...

I'll have to look at your descriptions later tonight (I hope) and write
something up and send it back to the list for more peer review.  BTW, I
don't want a parallel guide; I'd like to get the new one replaced and I'm
willing to go take whatever suggestions, contributions, or changes the
community thinks necessary to make a new guide official.  I just think the
modifying the old guide is too difficult if we want very much improvement.
 Thanks very much for your help!

Mark