Source based packages implemented in a way similar to Gentoo GNU/Linux benefit from the fact that features are easily customizable. Rather than having a set of precompiled binary packages with common features, a user can select optional package features and not only have he package customized to their choices, but have the tree of dependencies respond to their choice.
This requires us to map the switches each ./configure script implements with whatever permutations might work and not, testing that it works, etc. It is not worth our time and energy. It is much simpler, efficnet, and infact better, to use configure directly. The user will also be very dissapointed when we are late with a version (ideally, we should only bother updating the GSC when we produce a new release), or if some switch is not supported or doesn't work with another switch. Users will also report bugs to _us_, and not to the upstream maintainers, which is where they should report any bugs they get when compiling. If there is something a configure script is weak at doing, then one should add such functionality to autoconf. Once such a source based packae manager is designed, it could also be used for generating our binary packages. We have a system to generate our `binary packages', GSC. But it isn't meant to be used in the way you describe, it is meant to build the GNU system much like /usr/src in OpenBSD. You can tweak the Makefile to change a variable or similar if you really want to. Cheers. _______________________________________________ gnu-system-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-system-discuss
