At 3:39 PM +0200 2002/04/10, Max Horn wrote:
>First off, I'd like to keep the discussion regarding a Fink CD 
>completly free of mentioning OpenOSX. I don't feel such a CD should 
>be made to spite anybody, but if at all for it's own good. Anyway, 
>here are some quick thought of mine on this:
>1) It will be very helpful to anybody with a not so fast connection; 
>to people that want to use an install CD to quickly install this 
>stuff on my machines; for people that want to have a local "Fink 
>server", so to say, where machines behind a restrictive firewall can 
>download stuff; etc. I definitly see a use in it.
>2) There is a lot of stuff in Fink. I guess we'll have to make at 
>least two CDs, one full with source, one with binaries. Ideally, 
>both would contain a mini Fink installer that allows you to 
>bootstrap Fink; the binary CD(s) should be usable on any Fink 
>system, i.e. you plug the CD in, and Fink can get packges from it; 
>and the source CD(s) likewise, i.e. it should be possible to get 
>sources from it transparently.


        I like the idea of making it easy to produce a local fink 
repository, separate from the installer and marketing issue.

        Perhaps we should start with making it easy for an admin to 
build a local repo, for network and/or CD installs. Should we start 
by suggesting "fink fetch-all", and does anyone feel like writing 
"fink build-all", for all known packages (or those already fetched, 
so users have somewhat finer control)? Can we generalize & simplify 
the process you use for the binary distro, both to make the next 
version easier on you, and to make it easier for others to roll their 

        It seems if we made it easier for users with a fast 
connection (including ourselves) to get complete and current sets of 
.info/.patch files, source tarballs, and .debs, we'd make it easier 
for others to build (and customize, if desired) their own fink 
distributions, either by putting them on a local file server, or 
burning their own CDs. This is useful even without a GUI, GUI 
installer, and logo.

        Then some fool^H^H^H^Hfine volunteer can build .iso images 
with the source & binary installers, and we have the essential tools 
for CLI users. This paves the way for a GUI installer, should we 
decide to go down that road. If and when we get near that milestone, 
we can decide whether we're ready to charge for anything (or, indeed, 
anyone can decide they want to sell fink, without a consensus, 
hopefully with proper credit).

        FWIW, I use Yellow Dog Linux, and agree there's an obvious 
similarity between our source and theirs, but my experiences with 
them and their idea of customer service have been very depressing.

        More interesting to me would be Daemon News, a BSD shop that 
already sells Darwin & GNU-Linux CDs 
<>, which someone mentioned, has FreeBSD & 

                                                Chris Pepper

>3) Yeah, having a logo would be nice for a CD, and for other stuff, 
>too, but I don't see it as a strict requirement... OK, Justin? 8-)
>4) Face it, it's not that trivial to make one, at least if you are 
>not willing to do a sloppy job. Sure, anybody can quickly make an 
>ISO. But for this, we'll want to test it well, and make sure it 
>really works out of the box. Also, it would be nice to provide as 
>much convenience as possible (see 2).
>In the IT business, you quickly learn that Quality Assurance can 
>easily eat as much time as programming/design of the application :-)
>5) To sell or not to sell - I say we should first worry about 
>getting ISOs. Then people can use them or not. Next is we can 
>research whether it's possible to make them available to users 
>somehow. I am certainly *not* willing to take personal financial 
>risks for this, though.

Chris Pepper:          <>
Rockefeller University:   <>

Fink-devel mailing list

Reply via email to