binary rpm repos?

[Alexy Khrabrov]

Ryan -- thanks for the clear summary, as usual!

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
> I agree having binaries available would be useful. We're not missing a
> format like rpm or tar or zip or pkg to keep it wrapped up in. What we're
> missing is code in MacPorts base to properly record everything about an
> install into a binary container so that it can coexist in a MacPorts prefix
> with ports that are compiled from source. Once that gets written, then we'll
> need to write scripts to automatically build all ports and package them into
> whatever binary format we've decided on and post the binaries to a server
> somewhere.


I think RPM has a difference over tarball in the sense it has its own
dependency system.  I can imagine a direct translation of source ports
to binary RPMs to be installed in a separate prefix.  Iif you want to
mix them with source-built ports, a metadata addition is needed,
indeed...  Perhaps it can be added as either a Portfile or RPM.spec
section?

Basically what's funny is that Macs are the most homogeneous hardware
platforms in the world.  Thus having a prebuilt RPM would most likely
benefit the unwashed hordes who don't want to compile.  It actually
can benefit the brahmins as well when they don't have the time.
Surely if you want variants, build to your liking; if you just want
the default, why not an RPM?  Especially the dreaded GTK -- I can't
imagine recompiling it all the time.  Just get one bundle and be done
with it.  I usually compile things when I need language bindings or
features.

Cheers,
Alexy