Difference between revisions of "Talk:OSGeo Binary Distribution"
Wiki-Steko (talk | contribs) m |
Wiki-Makina (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
1 single binary for all Linux distros is not good IMHO, for the reasons above.--[[User:Steko|Steko]] 22:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST) | 1 single binary for all Linux distros is not good IMHO, for the reasons above.--[[User:Steko|Steko]] 22:28, 23 October 2006 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | As Debian and Ubuntu user, I would second that. Moreover, people from Debian/DebianGIS and Ubuntu Staffs should be of great help with their knowledge of packaging work. | ||
| + | --[[User:Makina|Makina]] 10:28, 24 October 2006 (CEST) | ||
Latest revision as of 00:28, 24 October 2006
As a Debian and Ubuntu user of GRASS, I'd like to give here my 2¢ about binaries.
- People don't like external repositories
- People don't like non-debianized binaries (that's why they are using Debian)
- 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)
As Debian and Ubuntu user, I would second that. Moreover, people from Debian/DebianGIS and Ubuntu Staffs should be of great help with their knowledge of packaging work.
--Makina 10:28, 24 October 2006 (CEST)