<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr">I already maintain some ports that install binaries from upstream, like the openjdk* ports, which are very complex to build from source and take many, many hours to build.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I also maintain some Go ports that build from source, but that are not available on some older OS versions because the go compiler doesn’t seem to be available for those older OS versions. See for instance <a href="https://ports.macports.org/port/kustomize/summary">https://ports.macports.org/port/kustomize</a> and <a href="https://ports.macports.org/port/skaffold/summary">https://ports.macports.org/port/skaffold/summary</a>. I wonder if those application would work on those older OS versions if I would switch those ports to install binaries from upstream.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Nils.</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">Op 4 aug. 2020 om 19:48 heeft Ruben Di Battista <rubendibattista@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">There's is one compelling need for having "binary only" install, and that is for the port "osxfuse", that is currently broken for 10.14+.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There was a discussion about it on the Github project about the choice of making it close closed source... Nonetheless it would be useful to have it in order to provide things like fuse file systems and so on.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 4 Aug 2020, 15:38 Lothar Haeger, <<a href="mailto:lothar.haeger@gmx.net">lothar.haeger@gmx.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Am 30.07.2020 um 08:03 schrieb Ken Cunningham <<a href="mailto:ken.cunningham.webuse@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ken.cunningham.webuse@gmail.com</a>>:</div><div><pre style="font-size:13px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">I only raise the idea as people are already doing this, and submitting such ports, and before we have too many, there is an opportunity to say how it should best be done (custom category, naming convention, etc).</pre></div></blockquote></div>Reminds me of an earlier conversation at <a href="https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/6767#discussion_r402584006" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/6767#discussion_r402584006</a> <div><br></div><div>I do see some benefits is formalizing binary-only ports and to adapt the build and distribution scheme for it. Could save resources and development time and make those ports easily recognizable for those who care about the different way it was built.<br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>