Thanks for the replies, everyone. Here are my current takeaways:
* Don't create Linux distro-specific packages, let the various
communities deal with it
* Don't create a networked installer
So here's what I'm thinking we do now. These are the install methods we
would be promoting on the home page:
* Mac: .pkg file
* Linux: standalone, cross-distro installer
* Windows: use the installer we've already got
I'm worried that, if we keep out of the packaging business, but those
packages end up being peoples' preferred way to get Rust, then the web
page would be advocating the worst ways to get Rust. It seems like we'll
need to put a link to 'alternate installation methods' on the homepage
to link people to homebrew, macports, ubuntu, arch, etc. packages,
emphasizing that they are unsupported.
On 02/06/2014 04:35 PM, Brian Anderson wrote:
Hey.
One of my goals for 0.10 is to make the Rust installation and upgrade
experience better. My personal ambitions are to make Rust installable
with a single shell command, distribute binaries, not source, and to
have both nightlies and point releases.
Since we're already able to create highly-compatible snapshot
compilers, it should be relatively easy to extend our snapshot
procedure to produce complete binaries, installable via a
cross-platform shell script. This would require the least amount of
effort and maintenance because we don't need to use any specific
package managers or add new bots, and a single installer can work on
all Linuxes.
We can also attempt to package Rust with various of the most common
package managers: homebrew, macports, dpkg, rpm. There
community-maintained packages for some of these already, so we don't
necessarily need to redevelop from scratch if we just want to adopt
one or all of them as official packages. We could also create a GUI
installer for OS X, but I'm not sure how important that is.
What shall we do?
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
