On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:49:36 PDT "Richard L. Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I'd much rather see a ports type implementation than
> > an rpm
> > implementation - particularly if it includes the
> > sources.
> Sources available? Darn right - some of the licenses require that, too.
Sources is one thing. Being able to build it is quite another.
> Build from source as the normal method of installation? That, I think is
> too slow for most people (who would have trouble spelling "C", and wouldn't
> be interested anyway).
True. And most people don't care much about having lots of unused code
around or the security implications of doing that, either. So things
like apt & rpm make them happy.
However, the various ports systems demonstrate two things:
1) Given a good package manager that handles dependencies properly,
you can provide binaries packages that let the user configure only
what they need (assuming, of course, that this is reasonable for
the software in question).
2) If you provide a mechanism that lets people set compile-time
configuration options, package developers will provide them, and
end users will put up with compiling from source to take advantage
of them.
Both of these are important. The first because, as you say, compiling
is to slow for most people and most packages. The second because it's
more important to get critical packages configured *right* than it is
to get them installed immediately.
Having a system that makes rebuilding from sources as simple as
installing the binary (and the various ports systems do that, whereas
as far as I can tell none of the rpm or apt-based systems come
anywhere near it) makes the latter possible. That doesn't mean
building from source has to the only - or even the primary - way to
install a package. Just that it's shouldn't be a second class citizen.
> Unless I want something simple and quick, MacPorts definitely
> gets on my nerves (although it's pretty good - very few things have
> trouble building, and they usually get fixed fast).
Try installing something with a serious dependency or two without
using a ports/packages system at all. I.e. - get lxml version 2 or
later working on leopard using the leopard python (though the author
may have made that sane in recent versions). A few trips around that
track, and MacPorts isn't annoying at all - it's a blessing, pure and
simple.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
