30 Sep
2010
30 Sep
'10
9:16 p.m.
Good
suggestions! This is why the test tarballs
(which I can now say for
certain are NOT final) were published early, to get
feedback from
distribution packagers. ;-)
Yes, I saw the recent security updates. I cleaned house here and
downloaded the entire SVN tree after those updates. Everything compiled.
The monolithic tarball is the entire source tree
provided
in the original SVN archive structure.
Perhaps the link should read:
Complete core and non-core packages SVN source tree
The complete tarball is a collection of all the
smaller module tarballs in one file for easy downloading.
Perhaps the link should read:
Complete non-core packages SVN source tree
I suppose the traditional packages mentioned
above could be
provided in
one more tarball. Of course, that means that
everything else should go in
another tarball, which brings up the question of whether or
not the
"complete" file should be retained as-is or split into two
separate files,
"core" and "extra".
Variety provides end-users more choices. Many people do not have
high-speed connections.
1. Provide one link to each individual package source tarball, just as you
have right now.
2. Provide one link to one tar.bz2 file containing all traditional core
package sources, which includes arts but also now includes tqtinterface.
3. Provide one link to one tar.bz2 for all non-core source tarballs.
4. Provide one link to the entire SVN source tree.
5. Provide one link to the SVN tree of the traditional core packages.
6. Provide one link to the SVN tree of all non-core packages.
I'm unsure about the latter three. As I discovered in my early efforts
with this project, there is no way to sync a local SVN tree after
downloading the tree as a tarball or ISO image. I had to delete that
directory and then use svnadmin and svn co to sync my local tree. I wonder
whether those SVN tree tarballs provide value or waste bandwidth?
Another note. I wonder about users' responses when they select a link at
your web site and are redirected to some place at the University of Idaho.
I think the link at your site should contain an informational message that
the sources are stored at that location and the SVN tree is stored at your
web site. Then people would know and won't wonder whether they were
hijacked.