Is there any value to packages? [was Re: Why no binaries?]

[paul beard]

On 10/25/07, Daniel J. Luke <dluke at geeklair.net> wrote:
>
> On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:11 PM, James Sumners wrote:
> > Why doesn't MacPorts supply binary packages?
>
> No one has worked on it recently.
>
> If you're interested, I'm sure we would be interested in your help.
>

Is there a status document that addresses where things stand on efforts like
this? I haven't been all that successful at building packages within port
(port pkg foo where foo is something i would rather not build again on a
second machine). I think I may have resorted to taking the output of "port
contents" and wrapping it in a tar or zip command, but that doesn't add any
of the magic of receipts and the rest of the stuff that makes a ports system
worth using.
if packages, especially meta-packages, could be licked, it would make things
like gimp and gnome a lot more accessible, as there wouldn't be the huge
build delay. I'm not a coder of any merit so I can't put my shoulder behind
it, but it would be of interest to know if the core team sees any value in
packages (possibly as a component of checkpointing the releases: as of a
given release, one could be assured that a given subset of essential/popular
ports could be installed as source or as packages). It may be one of those
things that is nice to have but lack any support on the core team or in the
user community.

-- 
Paul Beard / www.paulbeard.org/
<paulbeard at gmail.com/paulbeard at mac.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20071026/bcd81c23/attachment-0001.html