Re: X11 Mac OS X 10.3 emacs fink: only terminal?

[D P Schreber]

On 2004-12-13, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> Used to be that you had to have a placeholder for XFree86 in the fink
> /sw directory tree, if you were using the Apple X11 or an X11 install
> that was independent of fink. 

You have to install 'virtual' packages so as to meet the build- and
run-time dependencies, but these virtual package don't usually install
anything real.  They're pretty much just table entries, and sometimes
symlinks.  

In the case of the X11 virtual package, you can't install it unless you
have the full X11 sdk in place.  This is what I meant earlier when I
said I was surprised fink didn't complain when the OP built X11 emacs:
since he hadn't installed the sdk, he shouldn't have been able to
install the virtual package for X11, and without the latter, the build
requirements for the X11 emacs package shouldn't have been met.  Seems
weird it let him proceed with the build.  Maybe the specification
(.info) file for the X11 emacs packge is wrong?  Or maybe he copied a
fink installation from elsewhere?  That would preserve the virtual
package whether or not the sdk was installed.


<ot>

> I gave up on fink long ago

Software package managers are an excellent idea, but like the other
third-party package managers for osx, fink has to go through some
contortions to keep a consistent state on the one hand while co-existing
with Apple software updates on the other.  There's no clean solution to
this.  Ideally osx would come with an official package manager as part
of the system, the way Redhat and successors come with RPM.  Since it
doesn't, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that it's better to
avoid third party managers like fink and darwinports.

</ot>