On 3/15/07, Andy Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, Lucas. That will definitely lower the barrier to upgrading to > the latest version of their drivers periodically. > > I have a question: does this represent a change in policy that Recipes > can now be used to download and install binary-only apps? Despite the > "shim" compilation step, Nvidia seems like essentially a binary > download to me...
No, it's being made available as a recipe because there is something to be compiled, and providing a recipe makes sense for it. For purely binary packages it's better to provide a package instead. One can argue that it becomes more easy to make NewVersions and to automate/organize the installation of binary packages with recipes. I aggree, but I'm still reluctant to use recipes for the purpose of installing binary packages only. We should have a way to identify which recipes install such kind of package so that they don't get "mixed" with the normal recipes. > I think it's a fine solution when the source is not available and the > binaries may not be redistributed in a repackaged form, but I thought > it had been shot down in the past, and I wanted to see if a Recipe for > e.g. Adobe Reader was now possible as long as any relevant license > screens are displayed. Yes. I just think we need to find a way to tag these recipes so that they don't get mixed with the normal ones. Maybe appending 'proprietary'/'non-free' to the program's version? -- Lucas powered by /dev/dsp _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
