usage numbers for macports vs. homebrew?

[Mojca Miklavec]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Terry Barnum wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Art McGee wrote:
>
>> Terry Barnum wrote:
>>
>> The freeswitch devs are updating the Mac section of their wiki and are claiming that homebrew is more widely supported between platforms. They are reluctant to add information on using macports for freeswitch dependencies because a) they don't want to support what they don't know, and b) (they imply) they don't receive requests for freeswitch + macports.
>>
>> I guess I'm just looking to satisfy my own curiosity and maybe gain some info to counter with.
>>
>> Judging by this thread:
>>
>> http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/2014-March/103451.html
>>
>> The problem is that the presentation of the case for supporting MacPorts was confusing and unconvincing, so usage statistics are not going to help in that matter.
>
> 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.

Exactly. That's why you need to show why MacPorts can be "better" to
be convincing.

>> You have to give a clear and reasonable explanation as to why they should bother, when they already have a method that works.
>
> I agree, this is what prompted my question about usage.

A way more convincing argument would be
    "one can install it in MacPorts with 'port install freeswitch'"

Keeping

>> Truthfully, the better option is for you and the other MacPorts users in that community to take on the task of creating a port for Freeswitch, so that future installs and updates will be easy and seamless.
>
> 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.

What packages?

> 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.

Why shoud *they* (who are not even macports users themselves) be
interested in creating or maintaining a port? If you or someone else
creates a working port, I'm sure they will gladly add a note on the
wiki, saying that the software can easily be installed with
    port install freeswitch
and they will gladly fix any obvious issue that's not specific to
MacPorts (but that arises when building with MacPorts).

Convincing them to add "hundred" lines of build instructions using
dependencies from MacPorts instead of Homebrew is counterproductive in
my opinion.


Take a look at the attached Portfile. You can also open an ticket on
trac and start from there. You probably need to add different
configure flags (I guess that the following defaults are not
desirable):

      certsdir:        /opt/local/certs
      dbdir:           /opt/local/db
      grammardir:      /opt/local/grammar
      htdocsdir:       /opt/local/htdocs
      logfiledir:      /opt/local/log
      modulesdir:      /opt/local/mod
      pkgconfigdir:    ${exec_prefix}/lib/pkgconfig
      recordingsdir:   /opt/local/recordings
      runtimedir:      /opt/local/run
      scriptdir:       /opt/local/scripts
      soundsdir:       /opt/local/sounds
      storagedir:      /opt/local/storage

but you can always ask the mailing list for help if there is something
you don't understand.

Mojca
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Portfile
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1412 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20140314/b8e19a25/attachment.obj>