Re: would anybody use binary packages for NetBSD/i386 10?

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost (Michael van Elst) writes:

> gdt%lexort.com@localhost (Greg Troxel) writes:
>
>>it was underpowered, that I might or might not ever power up again, and
>>if I did I wouldn't use ftp.n.o packages on it.
>
> What else? Self-compiling on a system you already consider outdated? :)

I would use my i386 vm on a "modern" system from 2010, that I have set
up to build packages, on which I do my own cowboy pullups to get new
versions mid-branch, which I can do easily since I don't need to worry
about breaking other people.

And if I did power it up, I would only want bash/tmux/m4/emacs-nox11
anda few other things.  I certainly don't want kde, firefox, or any
desktop stuff.  It has only 512M of RAM.  That's half of why it's
powered off.

> Binary packages are more important on systems that we consider old,
> doesn't have to be a VAX.

Sure, but the question is how many actual people care, and how that
trades off against other builds that would be useful that we don't
have.  For example pkgsrc-current builds for netbsd-10 and 9 would be
very useful to improve the state of pkgsrc for all, even if the builds
aren't published.

pkgsrc doesn't have invasive tracking so we don't really have good data.