Packages Not [was Re: ambivalence about fortran (was Re: numpy & non-Apple gcc?)]

[Landon J Fuller]

On Sep 20, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:

> I think it's reasonable to have people install MacPorts from the .dmg (and not need Xcode) for binary archives and the user experience will be a lot like using rpm/apt/yum/whatever.

I think this may be the most pragmatic option. If MacPorts could be modified to not require developer tools for the common case (but support their use if you have them), then users could install MacPorts from a DMG and MacPorts-provided packages (of whatever format) could assume that a reasonable runtime is available.

You'd need to solve the 'selfupdate' without devtools problem, but that could be done by providing macports itself as a package. MacPorts could also only download the portindex instead of the entire tree of portfiles.

> Whenever automated builds or packaging come up Jordan has a lot to say. It would be a shame if it prevented anyone from working on something that is better than what we're currently doing (which is nothing). There's no reason why we can't continue to build on the archive stuff we have in 1.9 until it meets everyone's needs.

I agree with just about everything Jordan has had to say, but I also agree that it would be a shame to put the breaks on an emerging pragmatic solution. As long as MacPorts doesn't *require* a development environment for end-users, then using signed archives -- as long as they include the same metadata a port install would -- seems like a good first step.

-landonf