On 03/27/2015 17:21, Dmitry Kozhinov wrote:
Then let us distribute OpenIndiana in source form only :)
I like this idea ;) However, it's impossible now, we have some
closed-source components (like dmake or cpp) and a lot of components
which are not so easy to rebuild.
Seriously, I'd like to
Then let us distribute OpenIndiana in source form only :)
Developers hardly ever produce binaries for distribution, and usually
when they do, the available binaries have limited use and might not
be refreshed as often they should.
___
openindiana-di
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, James Carlson wrote:
Having developer (or perhaps better stated as "maintainer" or
"distributor") provided binaries is great. You're right that it's a
time saver for ordinary users.
Developers hardly ever produce binaries for distribution, and usually
when they do, the a
On 03/27/15 07:50, Dmitry Kozhinov wrote:
> The discussion here is lately focused on "how do I build package A" and
> "how do I build package B". Firefox is a good example. I will say
> "Firefox" in this message, but this may be applied to other packages as
> well.
>
> Isn't it supposed that Firef
While personally I agree with someone else compiling Firefox and "it just
working" (FYI I use the Firefox pkg from the Mozilla ftp site), I can see
that there is a use of knowing how to compile and maintain packages.
As it happens, there is a use of compiling it yourself if you are in the
position
Hi all,
The discussion here is lately focused on "how do I build package A" and
"how do I build package B". Firefox is a good example. I will say
"Firefox" in this message, but this may be applied to other packages as
well.
Isn't it supposed that Firefox should be built by Firefox *developer
