On 10/25/07, Daniel J. Luke <dluke@geeklair.net> wrote:
On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:11 PM, James Sumners wrote:
Why doesn't MacPorts supply binary packages?
No one has worked on it recently.
If you're interested, I'm sure we would be interested in your help.
Is there a status document that addresses where things stand on efforts like this? I haven't been all that successful at building packages within port (port pkg foo where foo is something i would rather not build again on a second machine). I think I may have resorted to taking the output of "port contents" and wrapping it in a tar or zip command, but that doesn't add any of the magic of receipts and the rest of the stuff that makes a ports system worth using. if packages, especially meta-packages, could be licked, it would make things like gimp and gnome a lot more accessible, as there wouldn't be the huge build delay. I'm not a coder of any merit so I can't put my shoulder behind it, but it would be of interest to know if the core team sees any value in packages (possibly as a component of checkpointing the releases: as of a given release, one could be assured that a given subset of essential/popular ports could be installed as source or as packages). It may be one of those things that is nice to have but lack any support on the core team or in the user community. -- Paul Beard / www.paulbeard.org/ <paulbeard@gmail.com/paulbeard@mac.com>