<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Craig Treleaven <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ctreleaven@macports.org" target="_blank">ctreleaven@macports.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">1) How much work would it take to have a mode in MacPorts where it only installs pre-compiled </blockquote><div><br></div><div>There is already "buildfromsource never" settable in macports.conf.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">OTOH, someone posted some information several weeks ago explaining how to determine if that licence conflict really applies or not. (Involves inspecting library linkages, as I recall.) I get the impression that our current policy is quite conservative and that a number of packages (many?) may actually qualify for binary distribution with some analysis and verification.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But someone needs to put in that time --- and time is always a problem in a volunteer-run project.</div><div><br></div><div>If you install a separate MacPorts from source in a different prefix than /opt/local (so people don't have to *avoid* MacPorts conflicts), you can make drag-and-drop installable apps. There are also tools to help make self-contained app bundles, although that requires manual intervention.</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates</div><div><a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a> <a href="mailto:ballbery@sinenomine.net" target="_blank">ballbery@sinenomine.net</a></div><div>unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad <a href="http://sinenomine.net" target="_blank">http://sinenomine.net</a></div></div></div>
</div></div>