New install, how should I set my macports.conf

[Scott Haneda]

Good commentary, comments below:

On Jan 23, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Jim Busser <jbusser at interchange.ubc.ca>  
wrote:

> On 2010-01-23, at 1:43 AM, Scott Haneda wrote:
>
>> At the same time, users are not concerned much with this
>
> What you say would be true anytime a simple "port install x" worked.  
> When however "port install x" did not work, it is exceedingly  
> difficult for any user (who only wants to enjoy some free software)  
> to succeed.
>
> The free help given on list is appreciated but obviously limited,  
> leaving the user with little choice but to find their own way.  
> Anything MacPorts can help will be appreciated. Can MacPorts instead  
> ship with +universal in variants.conf? I fully recognize the experts  
> will view it as unnecessary or wasteful but it is deactivated in an  
> instant by the savvy at the same time as the existence and need are  
> opaque to anyone who just wants to enjoy some free software.

If someone just wants free software to enjoy, do they really care if  
they are in 32 or 64 bit mode? Those who do will know why,  
( scientific, educational, server ) and probably be a little ahead of  
the curve from a normal every day user.

> Port clean seems to fail (without being clear it has failed) when  
> one would forget sudo (which I often do) making this a problem. This  
> tempts to work as root if it would be ok to add to the end of one's  
> path /opt/local/bin/

But that's a permissions issue, not a ports issue. Can one install  
ports as their own user? Wouldn't that make sudo not necessary?

I often do an "is root" check in my shell scripts. Maybe the same type  
of check needs to be done in ports for most commands.

Ports can then exit right away with "to -insert command here- you need  
to use sudo" then exit.

> The *hardest* thing from my perspective is my inability to know  
> whether it is my lack of adeptness that prevents an easy solution --  
> one that a consultant could identify (no consultants being listed at MacPorts.org 
>  though) -- or whether bug fixes or significant new code is needed.

I find this list amazing, three people in particular. They are like my  
own personal consultants, at odd hours no less :)

> For example, there is free medical software that I am trying to get  
> to work on Macs. I do already run Ubuntu and Debian (in Fusion) so I  
> do not absolutely *have* to get it working. But  if I would very  
> much like to get the software more widely-adopted (because I think  
> it will be better for patients) then it is worth somewhat of an  
> uphill battle to get it working.

What are the names of these ports, or are you writing said Portfiles?

> I got it working once, under Leopard. But now, under Snow Leopard, I  
> am close to giving up, despite not wanting to give up.

Share your issues with us.

> Even setting my universal_archs in macports.conf  and adding  
> +universal in variants.conf and doing
>
> sudo port selfupdate
> sudo port sync
> sudo port upgrade --enforce-variants installed
>
> (I had actually added +universal though it wouldn't have been needed  
> given the .conf changes)
>
> I am stuck on postgresql84 at the first package I need:
>
> sudo port install py26-psycopg2 +postgresql84
> sudo port install py26-wxpython
> sudo port install py26-mx-base
> sudo port install texlive +doc +letter
> sudo port install python_select

I think we will need more data. What are you trying to do, what do you  
think you are trying to do, and provide -d debug output so we can see  
why you are failing a clean build.

Postgres,M ySql, Apache, and php are widely used in ports, if not on  
the top 10 list of installed ports. It's something many before have  
gotten to work.

Remember, ports is largely in it's infancy when you consider long term  
goals. Considering those, it's at an amazing position. At least,  
that's my take on it.
>

> Users may aspire to limit their imposition on others so I tried  
> applying a patch to postgresql84. It is a patch that seems to have  
> been available, uncommitted, for some months. I had never before run  
> the patch command, so did not know what I was doing (it was my first  
> patch application attempt, and I maybe struggled through it).

I might suggest a poke to the list here about why it was not merged,  
if it could be, and what others suggested.

> But maybe that patch is not an adequate solution, as building  
> postgresql84 still failed. That is where I am stuck. Thanks for  
> reading.

Please supply what you want, what you have tried, and debug output.  
I'm sure you will be up and running by the end of the weekend with  
respect to postgres.

--  
Scott
(Sent from a mobile device)