Difference between revisions of "Talk:OSGeo Binary Distribution"

From OSGeo
Jump to: navigation, search
 
m
Line 5: Line 5:
 
So IMVHO, targeting to these 2 distros, OSGEO should come and help DebianGIS, who is responsible for Debian packages, and have someone in the Ubuntu MOTU (Masters of the Universe : those who manage packages that come straight from debian unstable without being modified by the Ubuntu staff) who takes care about keeping current versions in the repositories.
 
So IMVHO, targeting to these 2 distros, OSGEO should come and help DebianGIS, who is responsible for Debian packages, and have someone in the Ubuntu MOTU (Masters of the Universe : those who manage packages that come straight from debian unstable without being modified by the Ubuntu staff) who takes care about keeping current versions in the repositories.
  
1 single binary for all Linux distros is not good IMHO, for the reasons above.
+
1 single binary for all Linux distros is not good IMHO, for the reasons above.--[[User:Steko|Steko]] 22:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)

Revision as of 13:28, 23 October 2006

As a Debian and Ubuntu user of GRASS, I'd like to give here my 2¢ about binaries.

  1. People don't like external repositories
  2. People don't like non-debianized binaries (that's why they are using Debian)
  3. People like Debian because of its stability: a sysadmin won't accept to install external packages in a production environment

So IMVHO, targeting to these 2 distros, OSGEO should come and help DebianGIS, who is responsible for Debian packages, and have someone in the Ubuntu MOTU (Masters of the Universe : those who manage packages that come straight from debian unstable without being modified by the Ubuntu staff) who takes care about keeping current versions in the repositories.

1 single binary for all Linux distros is not good IMHO, for the reasons above.--Steko 22:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST)