On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Venky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:24:10AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: >> I might also point out that is a symptom rather than proof that some >> projects don't distribute binaries for specific GNU/Linux >> distributions. >> >> I would argue that some developers don't distribute packages for >> GNU/Linux distributions because it is nearly impossible to generate a >> binary that will work across different versions of GNU/Linux. > > True, that is part of the problem. The more important one IMO, is > that it is up to distributor/maintainer and not the developer to > make choices on how the package is built. Debian and Ubuntu both > use the same package format, but Debian packages tend to be more > conservatively built as compared to Ubuntu's. Some distributions > tend to prefer performance over stability and the same packages tend > to be built with aggressive compiler optimization flags. That would > not work for more conservative, enterprise-friendly distributions.
Now you're getting into packaging policy. Again, I don't think this *has* to be part of the packaging system. I am not opposed to the existence of a build system, I just don't want it to be *part* of the packaging system itself. That's just my personal desire though. I used rpmbuild for many years, so I'm quite familiar with some of the advantages. But many individuals that have used rpmbuild can attest to its many disadvantages as well. One of the things I always enjoyed about SVR4 packages was how easy it was to turn an installed tree into a package. For me, that will be my primary use. -- Shawn Walker "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
