On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 10:16 -0500, Thomas Dziedzic wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Christoph <ch...@gmx.at> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have just adopted the package xmind > > (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22394) because the former > > maintainer > > disowned it, and I am not shure which is the best way to build the package. > > > > There are three possibilities: > > > > 1) Building from source > > 2) Building from the "Portable" zip-file (see > > http://www.xmind.net/downloads/) > > 3) Building from the deb-files provided for Debian/Ubuntu (see > > http://www.xmind.net/downloads/) > > > > ad 1) > > This is what you would usually do, but according to > > http://groups.google.com/group/xmind-dev/browse_thread/thread/d68d0c8f30b4b42c > > the eclipse ide would be a prerequisite, so that would need a very large > > download if you do not already have installed eclipse (nearly 170 MB for > > eclipse plus 10 MB for the xmind source code!) > > > > ad 2) > > This was the way the former maintainer went. Download size: 75 MB > > The portable zip-file contains both the 32-bit and the 64-bit versions, so > > the > > PKGBUILD just had to copy the right files. > > > > ad 3) > > When I proposed (a year ago) to use the deb-files instead in order to have > > smaller downloads (each of them, 32-bit and the 64-bit has appr. 36 MB), the > > maintainer told me that this would be ugly and "not the Arch way", that he > > would not do such a thing. When I told him that I did not get the point of > > it, > > since the zip file equally just installed ready-built binaries, he did not > > respond to it. > > > > I still think that using the deb-files would - in this special case - be the > > best option. But of course I would never dare to deviate from "the Arch way" > > (since it is the way to world domination, as we all know ;-)). > > > > What do you think? > > > > Christoph > > > > I always prefer a package build from source, but if it's provided in a > portable zip, that is a valid option in this instance. I would say go > with option 2. > > Cheers!
It looks like in this case the content of the portable zip is identicaly (just about) to the content of the deb, just that the debs are arch-specific. I'd think its simpler to just go with option 3. Its surprising that any project REQUIRES eclipse to build though, eclipse can generate makefiles which can be shipped with source....
