Quoting Ian Piumarta <ian.piumarta at inria.fr>:

> 

[munch]

> 
> ObPhilosphicalSoundingBoard: I really wanted to avoid installing Fink (or
> gnu/darwin or anything else of that ilk) on my OSX machine.  All of them
> add unreasonable clutter and introduce possibilities for unexpected
> dependencies (viz the libiconv thing I just fell over, but _worse_).  An
> entirely satisfactory Unix/X11 development environment under OSX is not
> hard to build, without relying on any of the nonsense that Fink (or
> similar) wants to install just to reach a point where a trivial source
> package can be built.  I've successfully compiled lots of Unix/X11
> applications from source (including Emacs and even 713Mb of XF86 4.2.1
> distrib) on my OSX machine without needing any special Finkian-type stuff
> at all.  IMO, if any given Unix app has trouble compiling under OSX then
> the solution is to fix the app (rather than trying to 'fix' any perceived
> 'deficiencies' in the environment under which it's being compiled).  OSX +
> optional BSD subsystem + developer tools = a Unix development environment
> that is every bit as mature and complete as any other Unix system, albeit
> slightly idosyncractic compared to what many people were previously
> familiar with.
> 

I would have to agree with you... I've run Fink on my OS X box, and while 
convenient for some things, having it "automatically" check for dependencies 
when trying to install something can create havok and quickly ruin a pristine 
box. Although have everything under /sw makes is convenient to rm -rf :)

I installed LyX using Fink and had the X11 beta from Apple installed; then 
spent an evening trying to get Fink to realize that it didn't need install 
another set of X11 packages on my box. 

They have done a good job, IMO, as far as these things go :)


> Ian
> 
> 
> 
Brian

-- 
Brian Brown
TechGame Networks, LLC.
Technology is a Game;
Shouldn't you be winning?