[csw-maintainers] Easify OpenCSW bootstrapping on a server

[Philip Brown]

On 9/21/10, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> Am 21.09.2010 um 20:27 schrieb Philip Brown:
>> It seems like this issue has been a little misrepresented.
>> We already HAVE "one line bootstrapping" via the pkgutil method.
>> One that is already mentioned on our web site:
>>
>> # pkgadd -d http://mirror.opencsw.org/opencsw/pkgutil-`uname -p`.pkg
>>
>> This doesnt seem complicated to me. A one line cut-n-paste. Easy.
>
> It is not complicated. But it can be even less complicated by
> not having to specify `uname -p`. After reviewing the old
> discussion I can't see a particular reason to not include
> wget to a generic version.

You are not clearly stating what you are pushing. Please dont use
these 'generic' terms, it's misleading.
To be specific, you are suggesting that we have a package that is
explicitly designated as "ARCH=all" - a designation that is usually
understood to mean "no binaries" - contain binaries.

> It really boils down to beauty vs. ease-of-use. Beauty is
> of course nice to look at, but it is not a virtue of its own.

It's not "beauty", it is "clarity and accuracy of package labelling".

I see two issues with your proposal:
1: what you are suggesting does not improve ease of use in any
noticable way. The change reduces by a handful of characters, a line
that is going to be long either way.

 (ironically, it could be argued better as a "beauty enhancement",
since some people consider backticks to be "ugly". but not "easy of
use")

2: this was already fully discussed and debated on the list a year or
three ago, and the issue was settled, by general consensus of the
maintainers: "ARCH=all" means "no binaries". You already know this,
since you were "there"  :), and also you mentioned you have recently
reviewed the archives. So why bring up this old issue now all of a
sudden?