Re: Package Managers
From: Nico Kadel-Garcia (nkadel_at_comcast.net)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:03:21 -0400
"Jim Richardson" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:27:29 GMT,
> Alan Connor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:21:05 +0100, Roger Leigh
> > Our viewpoints are diametrically opposed, Roger.
> > You love APT, and I wish to be distro/nix indenpendent.
> > Plenty of room in the world for both, and no need for
> > consensus.
> > When I read that you think gcc should be optional, I realized
> > that we have no common ground here.
> Of course gcc should be optional. I have several servers that don't have
> it installed, deliberately not. There's no need for them to have it,
> since any packages for them, I build elsewhere and install there. I have
> Debian on a small pentab, I neither want, nor need, a compiler there. It
> takes up room that can be put to better use. If I do decide I need a
> compiler somewhere it isn't install. I simply apt-get install it, then
> remove the bits afterwards. One of tha advantages of package management
This is especially true for network-installed systems that get flushed
daily, or external servers, or the live CD based distributions, or open
kiosks, etc., etc. You get the idea: there are a *lot* of systems where
"compile it locally" is infeasible or simply stupid.