Anders F Björklund wrote: > Joshua Root: > >>> 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. > > Okay, I heard more like "we don't need no steenking packages"... > > So sticking with the archives seemed like a reasonable approach.
I do think archives should be the short-term goal. The true binary distro utopia Jordan describes will naturally be a lot more work. >> 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. > > So you want the dp_light branch updated ? Or a patch for xpkg ? > > Or should we talk about which code we are about to patch ? ;-) I figure resurrecting the patch in #8571 would be a good start. Then grab archives from MPAB and make them available, and see where things go from there. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
