Packages Not

[Joshua Root]

On 2010-9-23 06:59 , Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> 
> The activate step was a wrinkle I kind of deliberately glossed over. :-)
>   We'd have to decide, in a package producing world, just what to do
> about the different installation types, direct and image, and perhaps
> make some hard decisions about perhaps just supporting one of them.  I
> can certainly see packages being somewhat polymorphic in how they deal
> with direct/image, doing different things at install time (I even have a
> pretty fair idea as to how to do it), but it still begs the question as
> to whether the additional complexity would really be worth it or if we
> couldn't just say "to hell with it, packages are always direct mode
> installs!".  Food for thought.

We (or at least blb and I) were working towards something like this:
<http://trac.macports.org/ticket/19458>
<http://trac.macports.org/browser/branches/images-and-archives>

Unfortunately I think integration of registry2.0 created a painful merge
situation, so it's been stalled. The existing implementation uses .tbz2
archives, but it's equally applicable whether we end up using
enhanced-archives or some fancier package format.

> I think MacPorts "cares" for some value of care, it's just waiting for
> someone else to do the work.  I'm even volunteering, since I'm tired of
> always just ranting about it and then wandering off again. ;-)

Substantial contributions to base in general have been really sparse
lately. So, thanks for volunteering! Please submit lots of patches! :-)

- Josh