port "cask" -- installing prebuilt binaries

[Ken Cunningham]

> 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 <mark at macports.org  <https://lists.macports.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev>>
> MacPorts Trac WikiPage <https://trac.macports.org/wiki/mark  <https://trac.macports.org/wiki/mark>>
> GitHub Profile <https://github.com/markemer  <https://github.com/markemer>>
>
>
>

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.


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.


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.


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.


K






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20201213/ed9dd5ae/attachment.htm>