Re: Package Managers

From: Nico Kadel-Garcia (nkadel_at_comcast.net)
Date: 04/10/04

  • Next message: S.V.Proff: "Re: Q: Switching between screen resolutions before logon?"
    Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:03:21 -0400
    
    

    "Jim Richardson" <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote in message
    news:doggk1-46h.ln1@grendel.myth...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:27:29 GMT,
    > Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> wrote:
    > > On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:21:05 +0100, Roger Leigh
    <${roger}@invalid.whinlatter.uklinux.net.invalid> wrote:
    > >
    > > 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
    > systems.

    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.


  • Next message: S.V.Proff: "Re: Q: Switching between screen resolutions before logon?"