Jared Rhine wrote:
I feel it would be advantageous to do things "the Linux way" and
really support the Linux distributions' mechanisms for packaging and
distributing software.
In short, the biggest momentum and goodwill will come from having:
(Debian) apt-get install chandler
I agree this is ideal, but I don't think we are there yet for various
reasons.
1. We need some common platform at OSAF so that we can reliably do
testing etc.
2. Chandler is just barely getting to the usable state, and I would
imagine it would be quite hard to get it to the official distros
installers lists in the current state.
3. We have a pretty small community, and even smaller pool of resources
available to do the packaging etc. involved on all these different
platforms.
4. We should have at least one maximally usable binary installer
available (in addition to the source method). We now have rpm(, but see
below).
5. Chandler is not yet ready to be effectively packaged in this manner.
We simply require too many slightly-changed "standard packages". bear is
working on this.
I come from Mozilla background, and even though many distros do package
Mozilla-based browsers and email clients, I find there are several
drawbacks which is why I practically always download and install the
version from mozilla.org. These reasons include: distro versions lack
behind the official release, distros have different icons etc. because
of trademark reasons, and distros have non-standard configuration of
Mozilla leading to weird and subtle differences. But I should note that
Mozilla is practically the only piece of software that I treat this way
- usually I am happy with whatever is available in the distro.
--
Heikki Toivonen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
