On 30-04-2008 21:21:06 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On 4/30/08, Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think in that sense Cygwin is more Open Source, because how you get > > the primary shell/environment is available too. However, for me that > > doesn't matter, as the OS itself is inherently non-free in that sense, > > so that's what you have to accept first thing anyway. > > I separate operating system and applications... Just like you run on > HPUX or AIX... There is Windows.
Ok, then SFU is just your entry point to the system, like your "login" on AIX or HPUX. > > Just for your information, we don't do stages at the moment, not in the > > forseeable future from my point of view either. Binpkgs are in the > > planning. In general we just do a full bootstrap, on Interix you need > > extra help from "prefix-launcher". > > This is sad... I would really like to see fully operating portage on > Windows... It was more important to me in the past when I actually > used this OS... Well... making stages takes time, but more importantly, requires you to store them somewhere, and infra has no space for that. I do, but my internet connectivity is not sufficient for that. Besides, using Portage's binary support is more flexible, as the Prefix isn't fixed, but adjusted to your need(s). > I this sense [1] was a great idea! You could always use quickpkg to > extract binaries. I probably misunderstand. quickpkg creates binpkgs, doesn't it? > [1] http://gentoocygwin.sourceforge.net/ -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
