<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">So, I'm looking to install iTerm2 for old systems from binary as building
is becoming increasingly impossible - have we come to a consensus on any of
this?
—Mark
_______________________
Mark E. Anderson <<a href="https://lists.macports.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev">mark at macports.org</a>>
MacPorts Trac WikiPage <<a href="https://trac.macports.org/wiki/mark">https://trac.macports.org/wiki/mark</a>>
GitHub Profile <<a href="https://github.com/markemer">https://github.com/markemer</a>>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I continue to believe that in general trying to shoehorn "cask"
binary installs as some variant of a port that is generally meant
to build from source is a recipe for nothing but endless trouble.
Homebrew has a completely different subsystem for cask installs
that makes it really clear what you are getting, and this is very
desirable, I agree.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>IMHO binary-only install port should have some clearly
recognizable port name that does not cause confusion about what it
is, and does not obscure or trample a port's existing variants
(which a "prebuilt" or other similar variant name would do, if
there were other variants). We have port name distinctions for a
great many ports in MacPorts now (the perl, python, php, etc, etc,
etc port families, for example). Having a naming family for
binary-only ports is No Big Deal.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Chris has suggested a category inclusion, which is pure and uses
macports unique functionality, but IMHO is unrecognizable for
99.9999% of users who would never notice that a given port is
added to a certain category or subcategory.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>But we should resolve this, as many people want it, whatever is
decided by the managers, who so far have expressed no opinion,
ergo it is unresolved.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>K<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>