>>>>> "kazz" == Kazuyuki IENAGA <ienaga(a)jsys.co.jp> writes:
kazz> sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes:
kazz> Could the binary kit for each OSen use each package style rather than
kazz> _normal_ *.tar.gz as some binary kit had been made as RPM for Linux
kazz> distributions in previous release?
>>
>> Why?
kazz> I thought:
kazz> - Can't it reduce the cost for installation for system admin?
kazz> - Can't it reduce the cost for building binary kits because major
kazz> operating systems often provides XEmacs in their
kazz> distributions. For me, I made FreeBSD version of binary kit in
kazz> previous two releases. But I think most of FreeBSD users
kazz> installed XEmacs from its package distributed, not binary kit.
Not me.
The problem is that all packaging systems I've seen (FreeBSD, AIX,
Solaris, RPM) are quite inflexible, especially in environments with
distributed multi-architecture multi-version shared software
installations where they are completely unuseable. Software which
only exists in a native-packaged format therefore greatly *increases*
the sysadmin cost out here.
We've gone to great pains to make XEmacs binaries rather independent
of the layout into which it is installed. Our tarball layout allows
people to put the stuff pretty much wherever they want. It allows the
same install documentation to be shared among architectures.
Therefore, it is desirable to have all binary kits in the same general
format. Having native packages as an add-on is certainly a good
thing, but not in the absence of a regular binary kit.
--
Cheers =8-} Chipsy
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
