On 9/21/10, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 21.09.2010 um 20:27 schrieb Philip Brown: >> It seems like this issue has been a little misrepresented. >> We already HAVE "one line bootstrapping" via the pkgutil method. >> One that is already mentioned on our web site: >> >> # pkgadd -d http://mirror.opencsw.org/opencsw/pkgutil-`uname -p`.pkg >> >> This doesnt seem complicated to me. A one line cut-n-paste. Easy. > > It is not complicated. But it can be even less complicated by > not having to specify `uname -p`. After reviewing the old > discussion I can't see a particular reason to not include > wget to a generic version.
You are not clearly stating what you are pushing. Please dont use these 'generic' terms, it's misleading. To be specific, you are suggesting that we have a package that is explicitly designated as "ARCH=all" - a designation that is usually understood to mean "no binaries" - contain binaries. > It really boils down to beauty vs. ease-of-use. Beauty is > of course nice to look at, but it is not a virtue of its own. It's not "beauty", it is "clarity and accuracy of package labelling". I see two issues with your proposal: 1: what you are suggesting does not improve ease of use in any noticable way. The change reduces by a handful of characters, a line that is going to be long either way. (ironically, it could be argued better as a "beauty enhancement", since some people consider backticks to be "ugly". but not "easy of use") 2: this was already fully discussed and debated on the list a year or three ago, and the issue was settled, by general consensus of the maintainers: "ARCH=all" means "no binaries". You already know this, since you were "there" :), and also you mentioned you have recently reviewed the archives. So why bring up this old issue now all of a sudden? _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
