#18 Binary (precompiled) packages

feature request
open
nobody
Other (13)
5
2001-07-02
2001-07-02
Rahul Jain
No

We really should have a way of making and distributing
binary packages of the cCLan packages. These should
probably be named something like the following:
<package>-<implementation>
since the packaging format should tag the files with
the arch automatically.

where the following are examples:
uncommonsql-cmucl-normal
db-sockets-sbcl

Also useful with this scheme:

- A way of indicating in the .system file that the
package does not work with a specific implementation/arch.
- Package autobuild hosts.

Discussion

  • Rahul Jain
    Rahul Jain
    2002-02-24

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=246924

    with asdf development picking up again, maybe this will be
    easier to do. a compile-package operation would make sense.

     
  • Rahul Jain
    Rahul Jain
    2002-10-03

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=246924

    KMR's asdf:load-compiled-op should help us on the way to
    this goal.

    Now we need to determine how source and precompiled binaries
    should interact. My opinion is that we use the host package
    system to ensure that the source and precompiled binaries
    are of the same exact version and depend on the same exact
    version of the compiler that compiled them.

    This way recompilation is not an issue. There aren't really
    any undue constraints placed by these requirements, as the
    precompiled packages are intended to be used by end-users or
    in deployment scenarios where one would not want to be
    recompiling the software and won't be upgrading quite as often.

    Autobuilding the binaries for various platforms may be an
    issue. Debian's autobuilders should work fine for the
    packages we submit into debian from cclan, but packages we
    don't want going into debian quite yet and packages for
    other vendors will need to be handled, unless we consider
    precompiled binaries to only be useful as part of a packaged
    OS distribution.