Re: Lua Distributions and Package Management

["John Hind" <john.hind@...>]

> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 20:01:54 -0400
> From: Sean Conner <sean@conman.org>
> Subject: Re: Lua Distributions and Package Management

> The typical user (even the typical Unix developer) doesn't even
> install
> packages from source any more.  It's all "where can I get the
> binaries?"
> these days.  Kids.  Sheesh. [2]

I think this misses the point. No one cares whether the installation is
binary or source as long as the installation procedure is robust and fully
automated. Binary distributions have gotten a bad reputation because the
developer typically just dumps the sources and development makefile and
expects the user to sort out why the process does not work on their machine.
Particularly with a repository based system, it should be possible to make a
source distribution just as robust as a binary - the distribution of the
repository application needs to include everything needed on the target
machine including build tools, compilers etc. installed in a private space
(not on PATH) so they do not break anything else. Then the packages need
robust build/install procedures that emphasise robustness over speed. It is
helpful if the package handling system is GUI based rather than command
line.

Bottom line: there is no reason why the end user should notice the
difference between a binary and a source distribution.