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

[Daniel J. Luke]

On Oct 26, 2007, at 1:56 PM, paul beard wrote:
> 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).

You can handle that pretty easily with archivemode.

I even had a patch kind of working that would look for archivemode  
style archives on a remote machine (served up via the webserver)  
before trying to build (and if the archive was there, it would just  
download it and use it). I haven't really had time to work on the  
patch to make it acceptable for merging to base/ though.

> 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 think we can all agree that that is a good goal. We've had a bunch  
of different attempts to approach it (archivemode, mp-light, our pre- 
build packages we offered for download for a while ...), nothing has  
'stuck' though.

--
Daniel J. Luke
+========================================================+
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
+========================================================+
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |
+========================================================+