On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Christoph <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I have just adopted the package xmind > (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22394) because the former maintainer > disowned it, and I am not shure which is the best way to build the package. > > There are three possibilities: > > 1) Building from source > 2) Building from the "Portable" zip-file (see http://www.xmind.net/downloads/) > 3) Building from the deb-files provided for Debian/Ubuntu (see > http://www.xmind.net/downloads/) > > ad 1) > This is what you would usually do, but according to > http://groups.google.com/group/xmind-dev/browse_thread/thread/d68d0c8f30b4b42c > the eclipse ide would be a prerequisite, so that would need a very large > download if you do not already have installed eclipse (nearly 170 MB for > eclipse plus 10 MB for the xmind source code!) > > ad 2) > This was the way the former maintainer went. Download size: 75 MB > The portable zip-file contains both the 32-bit and the 64-bit versions, so the > PKGBUILD just had to copy the right files. > > ad 3) > When I proposed (a year ago) to use the deb-files instead in order to have > smaller downloads (each of them, 32-bit and the 64-bit has appr. 36 MB), the > maintainer told me that this would be ugly and "not the Arch way", that he > would not do such a thing. When I told him that I did not get the point of it, > since the zip file equally just installed ready-built binaries, he did not > respond to it. > > I still think that using the deb-files would - in this special case - be the > best option. But of course I would never dare to deviate from "the Arch way" > (since it is the way to world domination, as we all know ;-)). > > What do you think? > > Christoph >
I always prefer a package build from source, but if it's provided in a portable zip, that is a valid option in this instance. I would say go with option 2. Cheers!
