Comments on: Source Control for your Operating System http://ianloic.com/2008/05/05/source-control-for-your-operating-system/ from Ian McKellar Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:09:37 -0800 hourly 1 By: Ian McKellar http://ianloic.com/2008/05/05/source-control-for-your-operating-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1293 Ian McKellar Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:30:07 +0000 http://ianloic.com/?p=55#comment-1293 @Ryan I haven't used MacPorts enough to notice dependency resolution fail. I'd believe that it's written in TCL. It's got a real pre-linux kind of vibe to it. As for installing packages as root - I don't mind that as much because there's been some level of QA in packages that make it into a Debian or Ubuntu release vs whatever I download from an ftp site. If it's going to screw up someone's system by the time I install it thousands of other people have already tried it. @Ryan
I haven’t used MacPorts enough to notice dependency resolution fail. I’d believe that it’s written in TCL. It’s got a real pre-linux kind of vibe to it.

As for installing packages as root – I don’t mind that as much because there’s been some level of QA in packages that make it into a Debian or Ubuntu release vs whatever I download from an ftp site. If it’s going to screw up someone’s system by the time I install it thousands of other people have already tried it.

]]> By: Ryan Tomayko http://ianloic.com/2008/05/05/source-control-for-your-operating-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1292 Ryan Tomayko Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:26:14 +0000 http://ianloic.com/?p=55#comment-1292 MacPorts gives you dependency resolution on a good day maybe. Both the core system and the packages are broken as often as not. Did I mention it's written in TCL? But yea, the --prefix thing is great with stuff that supports it. > ... less scary than running someone’s “make install” as root. And what about running someone's post install scripts as root? I know yum always had to run as root (Seth hated that) and I believe apt-get does as well. There's sh in there, you know. I suppose if you're using only signed packages from the major repos you're okay but wasn't there just an issue around this last week that caused Fedora to shut upgrades off or something? MacPorts gives you dependency resolution on a good day maybe. Both the core system and the packages are broken as often as not. Did I mention it’s written in TCL?

But yea, the –prefix thing is great with stuff that supports it.

> … less scary than running someone’s “make install” as root.

And what about running someone’s post install scripts as root? I know yum always had to run as root (Seth hated that) and I believe apt-get does as well. There’s sh in there, you know. I suppose if you’re using only signed packages from the major repos you’re okay but wasn’t there just an issue around this last week that caused Fedora to shut upgrades off or something?

]]> By: Ian McKellar http://ianloic.com/2008/05/05/source-control-for-your-operating-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1291 Ian McKellar Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:16:43 +0000 http://ianloic.com/?p=55#comment-1291 @ryan, As far as I can tell the only thing that MacPorts gives you is dependency resolution. One pattern I follow both on my Mac and on my Linux machines is: ./configure --prefix=$HOME && make install to install software not-as-root. It's pretty easy to clean up and it less scary than running someone's "make install" as root. @ryan,

As far as I can tell the only thing that MacPorts gives you is dependency resolution. One pattern I follow both on my Mac and on my Linux machines is:
./configure –prefix=$HOME && make install
to install software not-as-root. It’s pretty easy to clean up and it less scary than running someone’s “make install” as root.

]]> By: Ryan Tomayko http://ianloic.com/2008/05/05/source-control-for-your-operating-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1290 Ryan Tomayko Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:06:38 +0000 http://ianloic.com/?p=55#comment-1290 Aye. Hacking on MacOS X is a bit like walking around the city without your underwear, isn't it? MacPorts is by far the worst package management system I've ever come across (and I use FreeBSD). It's almost more work than configure; make; make install. Still, I have a decent Linux box at home and I work almost exclusively on my Macbook. But then, I'm not wearing any underwear, either. You? Aye. Hacking on MacOS X is a bit like walking around the city without your underwear, isn’t it? MacPorts is by far the worst package management system I’ve ever come across (and I use FreeBSD). It’s almost more work than configure; make; make install.

Still, I have a decent Linux box at home and I work almost exclusively on my Macbook. But then, I’m not wearing any underwear, either. You?

]]> By: Ian McKellar http://ianloic.com/2008/05/05/source-control-for-your-operating-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1266 Ian McKellar Tue, 24 Jun 2008 01:59:25 +0000 http://ianloic.com/?p=55#comment-1266 Thanks, @mike. Welcome to the conversation. Thanks, @mike. Welcome to the conversation.

]]> By: mike http://ianloic.com/2008/05/05/source-control-for-your-operating-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1261 mike Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:19:45 +0000 http://ianloic.com/?p=55#comment-1261 you're a noob. it's so easy to develop on windows. there are so many tools to create installs. stuff simply installs on windows unlike linux which has to have all that complicated library dependencies. you're right, no comparison. it's too complicated on linux. there has been shadow copy since Windows XP which is basically OSX's time machine without the stupid star trek cheese 3d UI. noob linux users always think they can do more in linux, NOT. get a real OS you’re a noob. it’s so easy to develop on windows. there are so many tools to create installs. stuff simply installs on windows unlike linux which has to have all that complicated library dependencies. you’re right, no comparison. it’s too complicated on linux.

there has been shadow copy since Windows XP which is basically OSX’s time machine without the stupid star trek cheese 3d UI. noob linux users always think they can do more in linux, NOT. get a real OS

]]> By: David Luyer http://ianloic.com/2008/05/05/source-control-for-your-operating-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1254 David Luyer Thu, 15 May 2008 08:25:55 +0000 http://ianloic.com/?p=55#comment-1254 For MacOS X isn't this what -isysroot is meant to solve? I've never built against / for release, I've always built against /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.[234]*.sdk (OK, so I haven't built any OS X apps on Leopard, but I assume it's also the same). Any libraries not in the SDKs I include in my build process (to build a copy for each OS X release). Having a library locally installed is useful during development, but if it's not in the SDK, you'll find out about it when you try and build against the SDK and that will remind you to add it to your build. (Or, if you want the end user to install it as a prereq, add it as a specified prereq and then make a copy of the SDKs with it installed.) For MacOS X isn’t this what -isysroot is meant to solve?

I’ve never built against / for release, I’ve always built against /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.[234]*.sdk (OK, so I haven’t built any OS X apps on Leopard, but I assume it’s also the same).

Any libraries not in the SDKs I include in my build process (to build a copy for each OS X release). Having a library locally installed is useful during development, but if it’s not in the SDK, you’ll find out about it when you try and build against the SDK and that will remind you to add it to your build.

(Or, if you want the end user to install it as a prereq, add it as a specified prereq and then make a copy of the SDKs with it installed.)

]]> By: Will Tschumy http://ianloic.com/2008/05/05/source-control-for-your-operating-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1238 Will Tschumy Tue, 06 May 2008 03:58:37 +0000 http://ianloic.com/?p=55#comment-1238 also, check out: http://www.appzapper.com/ also, check out: http://www.appzapper.com/

]]> By: Will Tschumy http://ianloic.com/2008/05/05/source-control-for-your-operating-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1237 Will Tschumy Tue, 06 May 2008 03:57:49 +0000 http://ianloic.com/?p=55#comment-1237 Time Machines does actually let you roll back system updates - you just need to make sure it's covering your entire boot hard drive. You also have to remember to hit the "back up now" selection in the menu bar. If you do need to roll back - you need to boot from the DVD and then select restore from a given point. Not quite as easy as a true package management system, but it does work... Time Machines does actually let you roll back system updates – you just need to make sure it’s covering your entire boot hard drive. You also have to remember to hit the “back up now” selection in the menu bar.

If you do need to roll back – you need to boot from the DVD and then select restore from a given point. Not quite as easy as a true package management system, but it does work…

]]> By: Ian McKellar http://ianloic.com/2008/05/05/source-control-for-your-operating-system/comment-page-1/#comment-1235 Ian McKellar Mon, 05 May 2008 23:29:51 +0000 http://ianloic.com/?p=55#comment-1235 @Will, I don't think Time Machine lets you roll back software updates and things like that. I don't really know though. I haven't bought into it yet. I'm forever putting together my backup server that will solve all my backup problems. Right? :) I haven't heard about AppZapper. I just have to reinstall my Mac every 6 months or so, just like Windows used to need. @Will, I don’t think Time Machine lets you roll back software updates and things like that. I don’t really know though. I haven’t bought into it yet. I’m forever putting together my backup server that will solve all my backup problems. Right? :)

I haven’t heard about AppZapper. I just have to reinstall my Mac every 6 months or so, just like Windows used to need.

]]>