Comments on: Setting up QBZR on OS X http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/article/3244/setting-up-qbzr-on-os-x Science and Philosophy Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:21:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Grant http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/article/3244/setting-up-qbzr-on-os-x/comment-page-1#comment-467 Grant Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:43:50 +0000 http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/?p=3244#comment-467 Robert: I haven't been scarred yet by MacPorts; but have experienced what you describe on other systems. I an appreciate your pain. Most probably, I will proceed with whatever seems to be the most reliable and well-maintained. That is the best I can do. Robert:
I haven’t been scarred yet by MacPorts; but have experienced what you describe on other systems. I an appreciate your pain.

Most probably, I will proceed with whatever seems to be the most reliable and well-maintained. That is the best I can do.

]]> By: Robert Goldman http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/article/3244/setting-up-qbzr-on-os-x/comment-page-1#comment-466 Robert Goldman Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:15:59 +0000 http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/?p=3244#comment-466 I guess my feeling is "that's all true, until you find a port that doesn't work." When I tried to install darcs, the ghc port was known to have bugs. Yes, it beats building things yourself, but that's not really the choice here. Does it beat finding a standalone version of the same software, ported to the Mac? The darcs case is a good one. I really had no desire whatsoever to have a haskell compiler on my mac. I just wanted to be able to sync up with some Common Lisp package or other that was made available as a darcs repo. Why would I want or need to build my own copy, especially if that involved unresolved bugs in the ghc port? I think there is a good answer to this, but it's not a simple one. I think the answer is: "if it's infrastructure, you want the port. If it's not, maybe not." So, for darcs, I'm perfectly happy having a standalone Mac OSX version of darcs and never getting the Haskell compiler. But for something like gnuplot, probably I want the mac port, because I'm likely to find other tools that want to use gnuplot, and MacPorts' dependency management is valuable enough to go to the trouble of building from source. My experiences building gnucash have been scarring enough, though, that I'm not at all sure I wouldn't prefer rpms that would spare me the trouble of compiling. Cheers I guess my feeling is “that’s all true, until you find a port that doesn’t work.” When I tried to install darcs, the ghc port was known to have bugs.

Yes, it beats building things yourself, but that’s not really the choice here. Does it beat finding a standalone version of the same software, ported to the Mac?

The darcs case is a good one. I really had no desire whatsoever to have a haskell compiler on my mac. I just wanted to be able to sync up with some Common Lisp package or other that was made available as a darcs repo. Why would I want or need to build my own copy, especially if that involved unresolved bugs in the ghc port?

I think there is a good answer to this, but it’s not a simple one. I think the answer is: “if it’s infrastructure, you want the port. If it’s not, maybe not.”

So, for darcs, I’m perfectly happy having a standalone Mac OSX version of darcs and never getting the Haskell compiler.

But for something like gnuplot, probably I want the mac port, because I’m likely to find other tools that want to use gnuplot, and MacPorts’ dependency management is valuable enough to go to the trouble of building from source.

My experiences building gnucash have been scarring enough, though, that I’m not at all sure I wouldn’t prefer rpms that would spare me the trouble of compiling.

Cheers

]]> By: Grant http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/article/3244/setting-up-qbzr-on-os-x/comment-page-1#comment-465 Grant Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:46:19 +0000 http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/?p=3244#comment-465 Robert: I am leaning towards MacPorts as the best way to manage apps. It tracks dependencies for you, it has a ton of applications, and on top of that it lets you activate/deactivate different versions. It beats building things myself; and I can leverage the lessons that everyone else using the port has already learned and hopefully notified the port maintainer. Robert:
I am leaning towards MacPorts as the best way to manage apps. It tracks dependencies for you, it has a ton of applications, and on top of that it lets you activate/deactivate different versions. It beats building things myself; and I can leverage the lessons that everyone else using the port has already learned and hopefully notified the port maintainer.

]]> By: Robert Goldman http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/article/3244/setting-up-qbzr-on-os-x/comment-page-1#comment-464 Robert Goldman Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:28:47 +0000 http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/?p=3244#comment-464 I wish I knew about the tradeoff between installing with MacPorts and not. I know I ended up with a standalone darcs because my early attempts with MacPorts involved my poor laptop spending oodles of time trying to build ghc (the Haskell compiler), and then failing, leaving me with no darcs and a lot of time down the drain. And don't get me started on what it's like to build gnucash with its enormous dependency train. OTOH, it's obviously nice if MacPorts knows what libraries are installed... I wish I knew about the tradeoff between installing with MacPorts and not. I know I ended up with a standalone darcs because my early attempts with MacPorts involved my poor laptop spending oodles of time trying to build ghc (the Haskell compiler), and then failing, leaving me with no darcs and a lot of time down the drain.

And don’t get me started on what it’s like to build gnucash with its enormous dependency train.

OTOH, it’s obviously nice if MacPorts knows what libraries are installed…

]]>