I also believe we should apply this strategy to "binary only" non-open
source software.
I have a question tho, probably addressed mostly to @Ken and those that
manage the ports builds on old systems, in facts, about hybrid ports (as
defined by @Herby: open source software that we are unable to bui
I certainly see your points. Here are my thoughts:
On the subject of binary-only ports, you'll have two kinds:
- binary ports that are *entirely* binary _only_, and were *never*
source-built, no matter the platforms or macOS version (like Zoom for
example)
- "hybrid" ports that are so
> On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:13 PM, Ken Cunningham
> wrote:
>
> We need a new name. No trickery with categories is acceptable here.
Picture the ticket:
hello, user. Uhm before I can help you, does
port list echo categories:binary and installed | grep macvim say “binary” ?
No —wait — I meant does
> On Aug 6, 2020, at 2:34 PM, Herby G wrote:
>
> > If we decide to go ahead with this, and if we decide to primarily use a
> > category to mark these, we will need a plan for how to manage a name
> > collision conflict when there are two ports that install the same software,
> > one by buil
> If we decide to go ahead with this, and if we decide to primarily use a
category to mark these, we will need a plan for how to manage a name
collision conflict when there are two ports that install the same software,
one by building from source (on newer systems) and one by installing a
binary (o
> On Aug 6, 2020, at 12:28 PM, Herby G wrote:
>
> > so far, name-suffix is winning on all fronts...with no downsides yet.
>
> I don't plan on pushing the issue, but I have to say that I don't agree.
>
> Using a name suffix isn't clean, as you may include other non-binary ports
> that may hap
> On Aug 6, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Jason Liu wrote:
>
> All that said, one more question. As I now understand it, the idea is to
> download a binary-only installer (from the publisher’s web site) and launch
> it. Someone still has to answer any and all dialogs that such installers
> always pres
>
> All that said, one more question. As I now understand it, the idea is to
> download a binary-only installer (from the publisher’s web site) and launch
> it. Someone still has to answer any and all dialogs that such installers
> always present. So, it fact, the administrator has to sit at the
>
> 2) My impression is that developers of commercial software would, in many
> cases, NOT want a third party (like MacPorts) to be distributing their
> software. From their perspective, a third party introduces considerably
> more risk that users may end up with maliciously altered software. Can
> All that said, one more question. As I now understand it, the idea is to
download a binary-only installer (from the publisher’s web site) and launch
it. Someone still has to answer any and all dialogs that such installers
always present. So, it fact, the administrator has to sit at the machine
> On Aug 6, 2020, at 12:28 PM, Herby G wrote:
>
> > so far, name-suffix is winning on all fronts...with no downsides yet.
>
> I don't plan on pushing the issue, but I have to say that I don't agree.
>
I originally suggested both, and got no purchase on either, so had to push one
of them to
> On Aug 6, 2020, at 12:16 PM, Craig Treleaven wrote:
>
>
> Personally, I don’t see any compelling reason why the MacPorts project should
> want to go in this direction. The first paragraph on our homepage says:
Actually, I’m perfectly happy with a blanket “NO” on all this, if that is the
> so far, name-suffix is winning on all fronts...with no downsides yet.
I don't plan on pushing the issue, but I have to say that I don't agree.
Using a name suffix isn't clean, as you may include other non-binary ports
that may happen to have the word "binary" in their name.
A category allows y
> On Aug 6, 2020, at 11:29 AM, Ken Cunningham
> wrote:
>
> All valid points. I thought we had more-or-less got past the “should we” and
> moved on to the “how should we”,
>
> I am not necessarily championing this, but people are submitting these, and
> there is demand.here are nearly 4000 ca
> On 6 Aug 2020, at 8:02 pm, Ken Cunningham
> wrote:
>
> category-only identifier is
>
> less clear and less obvious
> harder to remember how to search for
> name conflicts with a non-binary version (eg for newer systems that can build
> it)
>
> so far, name-suffix is winning on all fronts.
category-only identifier is
less clear and less obvious
harder to remember how to search for
name conflicts with a non-binary version (eg for newer systems that can build
it)
so far, name-suffix is winning on all fronts...with no downsides yet.
K
> On 6 Aug 2020, at 14:06, Ken Cunningham
> wrote:
>
> Along with name-suffix, a category was actually one of the first suggestions
> in the original post 50 posts ago, but how does one see which ports you have
> installed that are members of that category?
>
> with a name suffix, easy.
>
> On Aug 6, 2020, at 10:50 AM, Herby G wrote:
> a "binary"/"binary_only" (or a new MacPorts specific name for these) as a
> *category*, just as we have the "aqua" category
> in this way, binary-only apps can continue to be represented in respected
> categories with "binary" as their secondary
Adding my 2 cents to this as well (why not).
I personally think a conservative approach makes sense here.
We can keep the entirety of MacPorts structure exactly the way it is today,
and add 3 things:
- a "binary"/"binary_only" (or a new MacPorts specific name for these)
as a *category*, ju
> On Aug 6, 2020, at 8:23 AM, Arno Hautala wrote:
>
>> On 6 Aug 2020, at 10:10, Ken Cunningham
>> wrote:
>>
>> How about I float a suggestion? We could append "_binary" to the name.
>> Otherwise leave the categories, notes, etc as they are now.
>
> Could all of the “cask” ports be put in
> On 6 Aug 2020, at 11:03, Craig Treleaven wrote:
>
> So, pretend I don’t know how Homebrew’s cask system works. (I don’t.)
>
> 1) As a user, what is the advantage of this kind of system versus other
> avenues for software (i.e. the Mac App Store or direct download of a dmg from
> the devel
All valid points. I thought we had more-or-less got past the “should we” and
moved on to the “how should we”,
I am not necessarily championing this, but people are submitting these, and
there is demand.here are nearly 4000 cask installer formulae on brew now. If
similar binary-only ports are g
> On 6 Aug 2020, at 10:10, Ken Cunningham
> wrote:
>
> How about I float a suggestion? We could append "_binary" to the name.
> Otherwise leave the categories, notes, etc as they are now.
Could all of the “cask” ports be put in a second ports tree? Any source-based
ports that wanted to depen
> On Aug 6, 2020, at 10:10 AM, Ken Cunningham
> wrote:
>
> How about I float a suggestion? We could append "_binary" to the name.
> Otherwise leave the categories, notes, etc as they are now.
>
> So a port that installs the Zoom teleconferencing application would be called
> "zoom_binary". (
How about I float a suggestion? We could append "_binary" to the name.
Otherwise leave the categories, notes, etc as they are now.
So a port that installs the Zoom teleconferencing application would be called
"zoom_binary". (We can't use "zoom-binary" because variants us the + and - to
do thei
25 matches
Mail list logo
