Rockbox mail archive
Subject: Re: [RaaA] Weekly status report
Re: [RaaA] Weekly status report
On 23 June 2010 10:25, Alex Parker <parker.alex.e_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 June 2010 18:46, Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Thomas Martitz wrote:
>>> For a redistributable .zip (if we want that) we probably could stick to
>>> the single .rockbox approach, but for compiling from source and for
>>> distributions/windows installers we want something more application typical
>>> I think.
>> IMHO, binary RaaA packages should use "native" packaging and installing
>> methods. That means .debs and .rpms on Linux and installer-things on
> And .tar.xz (Arch)!
>.. build from source (or do our own packages for
> different distros).
TBH it's probably good enough to support --prefix and maybe the
ability to specify particular library paths in the configure line.
Distributions very rarely directly use the packages packaging as there
is often a bunch of ancillary stuff to comply with the various distro
For Windows it probably does make sense to package things into a
setup.exe (or whatever it is these days).
Alex, homepage: http://www.bennee.com/~alex/
Received on 2010-06-24
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew