On 3-okt-03, at 18:55, Bob Ippolito wrote: >>>> PackMan is for end users. A certain amount of complexity for >>>> _developers_ seems pretty much unavoidable, and would be totally >>>> acceptable to me. >>>> >>>> I strongly feel that executing arbitrary code (even from a trusted >>>> source) is a big nono. >>> >>> Uhm... How about arbitrary setup.py scripts included with packages? >> >> Isn't the whole point of PackMan to _not_ have to execute any >> setup.py's >> to begin with? With setup.py you build a distro, PackMan does the >> install without it. Am I missing something? > > I think Jack is thinking too much about source package installs, while > you and I are focused on binary package installs? The binary ones are > the real win of PackMan, and the source package installs would be > icing on the cake, mostly. Agreed, but the source installs are a vital part of my plan for MacPython world domination: I want to break down the barriers between point-and-click installs and full-source installs. While breaking them down may be too much of a pie-in-the-sky goal I definitely want to make the transition easier. With all current open source the transition between being a mere user of a package and a full developer is a large leap. I would like to make that barrier lower. But, all that said, binary installs are indeed by far the most important. -- Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen at cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4