> Am 04.08.2020 um 19:52 schrieb Ruben Di Battista <rubendibatti...@gmail.com>:
> So my take here is to not provide pre-built binaries packages if not strictly 
> unavoidable, like for the osxfuse project (since it was open source before). 

I think we all agree that building from source is preferred, so nothing should 
change for OSS ports. There is no reason to fear anything you get from MP now 
would no longer be available in the future. OSS would still be built from 

I could imagine to implement a binary re-distribution scheme as a well-known 
variant e.g. "+prebuilt", so that it became possible for a single port to 
support both build/distribution schemes. That way dependencies could simply 
reference the port as usual, while each user could choose the variant she 
prefers. It would not even be necessary to decide on one exclusive scheme for 
each port, but have both options in parallel, wherever that might make sense. 
One could then also set "+prebuild" (or "-prebuilt") in variants.conf, so if a 
prebuilt binary is available, it would be used, if not everything would work as 
it does now.

> One of the reasons I chose Macports for is the fact it builds its own tree 
> from source and it ships basically open source only software. 

Not sure why "ships basically only open source" would be a reason to prefer 
MacPorts over HomeBrew, as long as either of them provided what you want (OSS) 
in the way you want it (build from source). Even if MacPorts also provided 
closed source stuff it would still be your choice to install or not install it. 
I see no reason how providing more binary-only ports in a more formalized way 
would make MacPorts a lesser choice.

Reply via email to