5 ms·

I ran into this problem, myself, after I upgraded Xcode a while back. Fink was no longer able to build a tool I wanted to install. I wonder if there's a compe

by simmons 15y ago

I ran into this problem, myself, after I upgraded Xcode a while back. Fink was no longer able to build a tool I wanted to install. I wonder if there's a compelling reason for these add-on distros (Fink, Homebrew, Macports) to be strictly "build from source" with no option for binary package downloads. For me, it just seems to add long delays in getting a tool installed, and adds frustrating dependencies on my Xcode version.

286c8cb04bda 15y ago
> I wonder if there's a compelling reason for these add-on distros (Fink, Homebrew, Macports) to be strictly "build from source" with no option for binary package downloads. For that to happen, someone has to take responsibility for creating, managing, and distributing those binary packages. That's much easier said than done. So, the simple answer is that no one has, as of yet, volunteered to do the work.
- koenigdavidmj 15y ago
  fink installs binary packages.
  - simmons 15y ago
    My Fink seems to always want to perform builds, but I haven't really studied it closely. I have a vague recollection of it offering binary packages for Leopard but not for Snow Leopard when I installed it, back in mid-2010. If Fink can provide binary packages for SL now, I definitely need to look into it.
    - astrange 15y ago
      Nobody has been able to volunteer the CPU time to build binary packages, so there haven't been any to download. Fink ships apt-get which is still perfectly capable of using them.
mikemcquaid 15y ago
Homebrew does have binary packages (we call them bottles). I'm the guy who implemented the feature and I am realising that as I didn't shout very loudly people don't realise that it exists. For example Qt has a bottle: https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/blob/master/Library/Formula/qt.rb https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/blob/master/Library/Formula... The reason we aren't doing this for more packages is basically people power and hosting (as I'm not sure Sourceforge would be happy we hosting the number of binaries we'd want to have). Hope that explains a bit. Feel free to comment if you think we're taking a good/bad approach here.
- simmons 15y ago
  I think I do have a better picture of the situation now, thanks. (And thanks to the others above who elaborated on the state of binary packaging in Macports and Fink.) I can certainly understand finite time and resources, and I'm grateful to those of you who assemble these packages.
Argorak 15y ago
Since 2.0, Macports can install binaries if available. http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/2011-July/024788.html http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/2011-Ju... In my experience, those are quite common now - most of the packages I install are delivered as binaries.

by simmons 15y ago

286c8cb04bda 15y ago

> I wonder if there's a compelling reason for these add-on distros (Fink, Homebrew, Macports) to be strictly "build from source" with no option for binary package downloads. For that to happen, someone has to take responsibility for creating, managing, and distributing those binary packages. That's much easier said than done. So, the simple answer is that no one has, as of yet, volunteered to do the work.

koenigdavidmj 15y ago
fink installs binary packages.
- simmons 15y ago
  My Fink seems to always want to perform builds, but I haven't really studied it closely. I have a vague recollection of it offering binary packages for Leopard but not for Snow Leopard when I installed it, back in mid-2010. If Fink can provide binary packages for SL now, I definitely need to look into it.
  - astrange 15y ago
    Nobody has been able to volunteer the CPU time to build binary packages, so there haven't been any to download. Fink ships apt-get which is still perfectly capable of using them.

mikemcquaid 15y ago

Homebrew does have binary packages (we call them bottles). I'm the guy who implemented the feature and I am realising that as I didn't shout very loudly people don't realise that it exists. For example Qt has a bottle: https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/blob/master/Library/Formula/qt.rb https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/blob/master/Library/Formula... The reason we aren't doing this for more packages is basically people power and hosting (as I'm not sure Sourceforge would be happy we hosting the number of binaries we'd want to have). Hope that explains a bit. Feel free to comment if you think we're taking a good/bad approach here.

simmons 15y ago
I think I do have a better picture of the situation now, thanks. (And thanks to the others above who elaborated on the state of binary packaging in Macports and Fink.) I can certainly understand finite time and resources, and I'm grateful to those of you who assemble these packages.

Argorak 15y ago

Since 2.0, Macports can install binaries if available. http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/2011-July/024788.html http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/2011-Ju... In my experience, those are quite common now - most of the packages I install are delivered as binaries.