[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New package managment
Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> > They donīt have compilers and stuff like that installed (What do
> > I need a compiler for? I want to play a game, write some texts, ...)
> > Those people need binary packages, as statically linked as
> > possible.
> No, don't think so. I think it is quite hard to remove the gcc from a
> system, all distributions I know install them on default. And hey
> without a compiler you can't compile a kernel. So I think, people
> without a compiler are below 1% or so.
Linux users can't survive without a compiler.
The reason *I* don't support binary downloads is that it's just
too painful. People have sucessfully compiled and run Tux_AQFH
Linux x86 libc5
Linux x86 glibc6.0
Linux x86 glibc6.1
Linux PPC - who-knows-what-C-lib
Linux Alpha - ditto
Linux Amiga (!) - ditto
Linux Mac - ditto
Windoze NT x86
Windoze NT Alpha
BeOS ?.? (x86?)
*phew*, so at a MINIMUM I'd need to keep 18 different binaries
instead of one source package. It's probably more than that
because I don't know how many varients of glibc there are on
(say) MacLinux. I'm also not 100% certain that a glibc6.0
binary compiled under Linux 2.2.10 would run under Linux 2.0.36.
No way could I hope to maintain binaries!!
Plus, I only have one computer at home (Linux x86 glibc 6.1),
so I could only compile one or at most two or three of those
Finally, if people download sources and the program fails
for some reason (NO! Surely not!) - there is a small chance
that the user will ferret out the problem, fix it and email
me that fix. If people find it much easier to grab just the
binaries, the odds of that happening are near zero.
May the source be with you!
Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
Raytheon Systems Inc. (817)619-2466 (Fax)
Work: firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.hti.com
Home: email@example.com http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1