Henri Gomez wrote:
I could provide Linux binaries for Suse 8.0 PPC and Suse SLES 9 but it's up to distributions mainteners to provide such binaries (via rpm/deb).
Take a look at jpackage for many Linux RPM binaries
Yes, that is my opinion too.
We should focus on providing a solid: 'configure && make && make install', rather then providing a binaries for ourself.
I think that we are good and mature project that any serious linux distribution (at least targeted for enterprise environment) should take into account, and provide a binaries on their own.
We can provide binaries for platforms that does not come with integrated build system like WIN32, and we are doing so. Although, personally I would be pleased to see the isapi_redirector.dll as part of the next XP service pack, it's hard too expect something like that :)
I kind of disagree...
If I want Firefox for linux - I get it from Mozilla.org. It may be a .tar.gz or .rpm - but it is a binary provided by the software maintainers, not by a 3rd party ( like a linux distributor ). And it is the 'real' thing, not a randomly modified version ( different flags and features, etc ).
Linux is such a mess in large part because people who write software treat it as second-class - 'let someone else deal with compiling binaries for linux, I'll only do it for windows and mac'. As a result linux distributions have the freedom to mess up and 'personalize' each package to their own taste ( we all know how painful it is to switch from one distro to another or use/support 2 distros - each file is in a different place - this is called lock in ). On windows - you can get nice binaries, with installer and everything else you would expect - distributed by the package authors.
Costin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
