macports and Xcode

[nox]

Le 11 oct. 08 à 09:54, Anders F Björklund a écrit :

> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>>>> As long as MacPorts builds ports from source, then Xcode is an
>>>> absolute
>>>> requirement (for gcc etc).  If the day comes that MacPorts
>>>> distributes
>>>> binary packages, then Xcode may only be needed by some ports and  
>>>> not
>>>> MacPorts as a whole.
>>>
>>> As a guess, the macports installation process could include
>>>
>>> a) tcl
>>> b) a build system port (bootstrapped) to replace Xcode distributions
>>
>> I suppose. But what would be the advantage? What's so awful about
>> having to install Xcode?
>
> As long as the "Xcode" requirement is replace by something
> fully equivalent, there shouldn't be much of a difference.
> But like you say, there's not much incentive do so on the
> Mac OS X platform but only on other platforms without it...
>
> It goes something like this, first two being semi-optional:
> 1) Install X11 + SDK (if you want to run x11 applications)
> 2) Install Developer Tools (if you want to *build* ports)
> 3) Install MacPorts (requires Tcl/Foundation/mtree etc.)
>
>
> One reason could be to keep MacPorts fully "self-contained",
> and to cut down on the amount of "outside" dependencies... ?
> Currently there is a big grey zone of what's ok to use from
> system (GCC, X11, etc) and what is not (Perl, Python, etc)
>
> Which sometimes gives problems - like with the broken cURL
> on Tiger or the broken Tcl on Leopard, both from the system.
> Had these been self-contained, it would have been easier to
> fix them than having to wait (forever ?) for a vendor upgrade.
>
>
> But when it all works and when MacPorts doesn't have binaries,
> it's easier to just install X11 and Xcode from .pkg packages.
> So that's what the Guide says. Besides, they're both included
> on the DVDs (even if you might have to update Xcode DVD first)
>
> --anders

I really don't want to have to build or use a bootstrapped GCC, X11  
and all to have a self-contained
MacPorts installation.