On 23 June 2010 10:25, Alex Parker <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22 June 2010 18:46, Daniel Stenberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Thomas Martitz wrote: >>> For a redistributable .zip (if we want that) we probably could stick to >>> the single .rockbox approach, but for compiling from source and for >>> distributions/windows installers we want something more application typical >>> I think. >> >> IMHO, binary RaaA packages should use "native" packaging and installing >> methods. That means .debs and .rpms on Linux and installer-things on >> Windows. > > And .tar.xz (Arch)! <snip> >.. build from source (or do our own packages for > different distros).
TBH it's probably good enough to support --prefix and maybe the ability to specify particular library paths in the configure line. Distributions very rarely directly use the packages packaging as there is often a bunch of ancillary stuff to comply with the various distro standards. For Windows it probably does make sense to package things into a setup.exe (or whatever it is these days). -- Alex, homepage: http://www.bennee.com/~alex/ http://www.half-llama.co.uk
