Anders F Björklund wrote: > Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > >> I could easily see the MacPorts project saying, in some collective >> consciousness fashion: "Hey, we nearly died and came back to life! We >> have a lot more ports than we ever did before, a lot of them even work >> now, so hey, what the hell do you want, BLOOD? Go peddle your binary >> packages somewhere else! We're busy!" I can see a whole lot of >> justification for that point of view, which is why it's always with a >> sense of unease and mixed feelings that I even get into this whole, >> stupid packaging discussion from time to time. :-) > > That pretty much happened. Binary packages don't help if the source > don't work. > > But then it went from there (we're busy), to "MacPorts is a source > distribution".
"MacPorts is a source distribution" is merely a statement of fact, not of policy, as far as portmgr is concerned. My personal response is, "Yes, we know that binaries would be a great feature to have. Now can we stop talking about it and write code?" :-) Because in the end, this feature request, like every other, is waiting on a volunteer to produce a patch. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
