binary rpm repos?

Emmanuel Hainry milosh at macports.org
Sun Mar 8 15:00:15 PDT 2009


On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 15:54:31 -0500
Alexy Khrabrov <deliverable at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 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.  If 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?

The dependency does not need to be in the package, it is already in the
Portfiles. macports does not need a new (or borrowed) binary package
format, it already builds binary packages and prefers them over
building from source when they exist: just have a look
in /opt/local/var/macports/packages/$system/$arch. And we even don't
need a new option for specifying if we want to install from source or
from binary, the switch already exists (-b).

The only missing link is that port does not download those packages,
but it should not be more difficult than what 'port mirror' does for
distfiles! Well obviously, there is another gap: those packages
don't get uploaded anywhere at the moment, but you should feel free to
share your packages.


Emmanuel



More information about the macports-users mailing list