Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
I could easily see the MacPorts project saying, in some collective consciousness fashion: "Hey, we nearly died and came back to life! We have a lot more ports than we ever did before, a lot of them even work now, so hey, what the hell do you want, BLOOD? Go peddle your binary packages somewhere else! We're busy!" I can see a whole lot of justification for that point of view, which is why it's always with a sense of unease and mixed feelings that I even get into this whole, stupid packaging discussion from time to time. :-)
That pretty much happened. Binary packages don't help if the source don't work.
But then it went from there (we're busy), to "MacPorts is a source distribution".
That said, should MacPorts ever DO decide to go from having thousands of users to having hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of users, I don't think I'm way out of line in suggesting that one reason will be because checklist items 1-4 were finally checked off by somebody. It CAN be done, Anders' tales of woe from previous MacPorts attempts in this area notwithstanding, with projects like Debian proving it every day (due to the innate superiority of their packaging tools, I suspect).
My tale was more about why simple archiving was chosen over packaging, really.
For me it was equally much the death of Darwin and the poor release of Leopard.
--anders _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
