On 2002.05.29 09:02 Michael D. Crawford wrote:
I'm not so happy with what I've experienced with OS X installers so
far, although maybe it's because the writer of the installer scripts
didn't make the effort to make them flexible.
For example, the installer for the OS X developer documentation only
gives you the option to install everything, rather than allowing you
to select doc for the different APIs (java, cocoa, carbon, device
drivers - the whole thing is installed),
Strange... long ago, I used NeXT, and I could choose what parts of the
packages to install. Has the installer gone worse...?
and it can only be installed on the root filesystem.
Shouldn't it work just like that? APT does that too.
On the other hand, my Mac checks for updates each time it starts up,
and there is a nice UI for obtaining them. It would be nice if there
were a way that this version checker could be told to check for
updates from alternate sources. Maybe there is, I don't know.
Debian doesn't do this, I believe; having a check-updates options would
be nice, I think. So that apt-get could be run every time the system
gets booted, and then giving you notices about newer packages.
One of the goals of the GNU Darwin project is a better package system
for OS X. They also provide OS X binaries for a great many Free
Software programs. You can download a 650 MB installer .iso image,
or you can buy a CD from a vendor:
http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/
Would that be based on APT? Or, is it any better compared to APT?
I'm not advocating anything for Apple on this list; it's just that the
OS is pretty tempting, but given the fact that installing the packages
is close to untarring tarballs, dreaming about owning it is quite
re-thinkable.
Oki
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
