On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 01:40:31PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Venky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:18:18AM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > >> Note I never said *packages*, I said *binaries*. > > > > Windows and OS X binaries do not really count, do they? The reason > > I think they do. Certainly efforts are being made by Sun to ensure > that ips works across multiple platforms because they apparently > intend to use it to deliver software on all those platforms. > > I also believe they matter because those platforms have substantially > more users than any other platforms.
Sure. I did not say the platforms do not count. The fact that binaries are delivered for those platforms by the developers does not count - and that is because they are forced to deliver binaries because of the lack of a distribution channel. > > they are distributed as binaries is because there is no distribution > > channel available for these platforms -- apart from the ones > > controlled by Microsoft and Apple. > > No, I believe they are distributed as binaries because that is what > users expect. > > There are many distribution channels that are available that are not > controlled by Apple or Microsoft. > > Look at steampowered.com as an example on Windows. Niche product, and also requires its own package manager. If I, for instance, needed a package on my Solaris 10 system and that package required me to set the RPM package management setup to install it, I would be inclined to pick up the binary directly too. And that would be a limitation, not an advantage. On the other hand, if the package was being delivered via the existing package manager, I would definitely be more inclined to use that rather than pick up the binaries directly. That is the reason why you find many mainstream projects not hosting Linux binaries anymore. But I'm just preaching to the choir, aren't I? Both of us see the value of a good package manager, and that's why we are here. :) > > Let me try and re-state my point in an unambiguous manner -- if > > a project is open source, the only format relevant to a distribution > > maintainer would be source code. If there is an exception to this > > rule, I am not aware of it. > > For distributions maintained and built for internal organisation use, > I suspect that binaries will be used in many cases even if the project > which the binaries are derived from is open source. > > For example, I know of organisations that just repackage the binaries > provided by mozilla.org for their own internal distribution. You mean something like an internal cache of package binaries? I might be splitting hairs here, but I'd not call that a distribution. > I could possibly agree with your assertion for the *first* maintainer > at the top of a distribution. But for derivative distribution > maintainers, I believe that becomes less and less accurate the farther > down the "derivative tree" you go. We seem to be going around in circles. Even assuming this is true, we still do not have distribution maintainers (first or derivative) using developer-supplied binaries. > To supplement Stephen's content about the lack of a build system: > http://blogs.sun.com/sch/entry/pkg_leaving_the_build_system Have read that and see the point. But I have also had first hand experience of the advantages of having build system support (of some kind, even if it is not an integral part) in the packaging system. Even builds as complex as that of openoffice become manageable because the work of putting together a set of build steps becomes re-usable. I agree that it does not necessarily need to be an integral part of the build system, though personally I prefer it that way. Venky. -- One hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong. _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
