On 14 Dec 2007, at 11:33, ronald kuivila wrote:
Hi Scott,I agree with felix - the binary is the binary. There are simply too many little things that can be changed/fixed that would then generate minor incompatabilities. This could turn into a distracting administrative burden.
Well, this is another problem with svn. I think packages that are installed by Quarks should be tested and stable. If you're using what is essentially a development repository for distribution you will always have the problem of bleeding edge stuff breaking something.
But I'm starting to think I've just gotten the wrong idea about what's intended with Quarks. If people are saying that Quarks is not really a full-fledged package manager, but only about (essentially local) install/uninstall tools for extensions, then I suppose that doesn't really matter. If that's the case, however, I think we should flag the update commands in the doc as intended for developer use only, i.e. use at your own risk and be prepared for the possibility of unstable stuff.
If svn is part of 10.5 as mentioned earlier, then perhaps it would be more effective to work out a script tovalidate the sourceforge certificate automatically.
That would be a big improvement, but you'd still need to include binaries for 10.4 and windows for the time being. However, if updating is not intended for general use, then I suppose that's not really necessary anyway.
BTW, I do take Till's point about making big changes in Quarks in advance of 3.2 possibly being too ambitious. Maybe it would make sense to leave it until later. FWIW, I'd be happy to help with it once I have a bit more time in the new year.
S.