usage numbers for macports vs. homebrew?

[Jeremy Lavergne]

On Mar 13, 2014, at 14:25, Terry Barnum <terry at dop.com> wrote:

> Hi Art. Thanks for your comments. While I agree the process may seem confusing, if you look at their standard build instructions you'll see that the bulk of the process I described is essentially identical. The only differences are installing dependencies via macports versus homebrew or manually, and passing CFLAGS and LDFLAGS to configure. The line about modifying configure.in ended up being unnecessary.

In this regard, there’s no substantial difference here. You’re installing the dependencies and you’re setting the flags.

> I agree this would be the best solution but the effort to convert their build process to a port is beyond me. They include many additional source packages in their source so I assume it would require time and effort to coordinate with the devs for version control of these. My hope is/was as a starting point to use macports for the handful of external dependencies, showing them that it could be an easy and viable method for Mac users to build freeswitch. Once they saw that there were few macports support issues they then might be open to a freeswitch port.

Sounds like they have created a build process that is hostile to package managers. That being said, this has nothing to do with saying “you need package X Y and Z installed” in the standard build instructions.

If this were converted to a port, the entirely standard build process would be replaced: dependencies and flags would be set by MacPorts.