Mike Meyer wrote: > 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.
I would venture to guess that a significant majority of users will never need to or want to recompile or alter the software as you suggest. They're going to want a stable, tested version of the software, and that means a pre-built, pre-configured binary that's been signed by their vendor. Since you need or want a more flexible system, I'd suggest you discuss it with the pkgbuild folks. It is highly unlikely that the IPS team will focus resources on a build system as it won't help us reach our primary goals and the resources spent developing are better spent on improving the primary user experience. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
