2007/8/1, Roger Marquis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > The point is that binary configurations are the only ones that > > are truly supportable from a vendor perspective, since they have > > a known, dependable, signable, verifiable configuration. > > How do you figure? Plenty of software vendors, mysql for one, > support both models. Both have known, signed, and verifiable > configurations. This is a red herring. > Nope, its not. The main point about port like solutions is the ability to change the version against with you compile packages, and enable disable features (which means most times linking to more or less libraries).
So sorry, the port solution doesn't have known, signed and verifiable configuration, in fact, it has thousands. On the other hand, a binary distribution doesn't prevent you to build your own modified package, as an example, apt-get source does that job, and conary is even more flexible in that regard. But providing a port like system as default doesn´t have any advantages other than package maintanability. -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
