On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 15:54:31 -0500 Alexy Khrabrov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Ryan Schmidt > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree having binaries available would be useful. We're not > > missing a format like rpm or tar or zip or pkg to keep it wrapped > > up in. > > I think RPM has a difference over tarball in the sense it has its own > dependency system. I can imagine a direct translation of source ports > to binary RPMs to be installed in a separate prefix. If you want to > mix them with source-built ports, a metadata addition is needed, > indeed... Perhaps it can be added as either a Portfile or RPM.spec > section? The dependency does not need to be in the package, it is already in the Portfiles. macports does not need a new (or borrowed) binary package format, it already builds binary packages and prefers them over building from source when they exist: just have a look in /opt/local/var/macports/packages/$system/$arch. And we even don't need a new option for specifying if we want to install from source or from binary, the switch already exists (-b). The only missing link is that port does not download those packages, but it should not be more difficult than what 'port mirror' does for distfiles! Well obviously, there is another gap: those packages don't get uploaded anywhere at the moment, but you should feel free to share your packages. Emmanuel _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
