Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:31:02 +0200 From: Jochen Fahrner <freebsd@fahrners.de> To: Dylan Cochran <a134qaed@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Porting ROX applications Message-ID: <CB863377-DE66-48F3-B806-298A1AB23CB2@fahrners.de> In-Reply-To: <bdf82f800904082101h14ca60mc55a9ee7e54eef45@mail.gmail.com> References: <1239190152.20664.1309561451@webmail.messagingengine.com> <bdf82f800904082101h14ca60mc55a9ee7e54eef45@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Dylan, Am 09.04.2009 um 06:01 schrieb Dylan Cochran: > This may be the wrong way to go about it, as in the ROX world, > 0install is the preferred method of distributing and installing > software. In the meantime I think I fully understand the concept of 0install. I was in contact with Thomas Leonard, analyzing the problems I have. Imho 0install is only working with platforms that are widely used and well supported by the maintainer of the 0install applications. You loose if there is no binary on the server for you. Take ROX-Filer: the actual version is 2.8. The server has a outdated and broken 2.4.1 binary for FreeBSD. Instead of letting me download and compile the latest source, 0install insists on downloading this broken binary. 0install does not let me download and compile the new version, but according to the documentation it should. My conclusion is: 0install generates more trouble than it has benefit. So I favour the old fashioned install method. I will not use 0install. Jochen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CB863377-DE66-48F3-B806-298A1AB23CB2>