Difference between revisions of "Talk:OSGeo Binary Distribution"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Wiki-Steko (talk | contribs) |
Wiki-Steko (talk | contribs) 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.
- 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)