Re: Package Managers
From: Roger Leigh (${roger}_at_invalid.whinlatter.uklinux.net.invalid)
Date: 04/13/04
- Next message: Alan Connor: "Re: Package Managers"
- Previous message: mehrnoosh abedi: "Re: How can I write a module in linux?"
- In reply to: Alan Connor: "Re: Package Managers"
- Next in thread: Alan Connor: "Re: Package Managers"
- Reply: Alan Connor: "Re: Package Managers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:19:13 +0100
Alan Connor <zzzzzz@xxx.yyy> writes:
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 11:21:05 +0100, Roger Leigh <${roger}@invalid.whinlatter.uklinux.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> Our viewpoints are diametrically opposed, Roger.
Not at all, just our priorities.
> You love APT, and I wish to be distro/nix indenpendent.
Here's a short anecdote:
About 2½-3 years ago, prior to the release of Debian woody (3.0), I
started to manually upgrade my potato (2.2) system by hand. That is,
I got the source for every package, and built the entire lot by hand.
At that time there was IIRC ~4000 packages.
After spending 3-4 weeks compiling, all weekends and evenings, I had
built over 200 packages. Resolving circular dependencies,
non-rebuildability due to changes to other packages and other horrors,
I gave up with about 600 packages (that I was using) to go.
Due to having Build-Dependencies, the packages have a strict build
order in order to satisfy them. However, upgrading from version A to
B is not straightforward: you might not have the binaries required to
rebuild a circular dependency. In fact, it's not possible, so I took
the easy way out and ordered a set of unstable CDs to upgrade from
(and it upgraded my hugely customised system without a hitch).
I concluded it was not worth my while building *everything*, since
this was wasted time--time I could have used to actually do something
with the system. I build all the packages I maintain (obviously),
plus any additional and/or custom packaging I need. I get the
advantages of a superb packaging system, plus customising the parts I
need to be different.
The issues when building from source are no different to building
packages. However, the lack of enforcable build dependencies is
actually a lot more dangerous--you can totally screw up the system.
> When I read that you think gcc should be optional, I realized
> that we have no common ground here.
gcc should be optional because not all users (the majority, in fact)
want a compiler. They shouldn't be forced to install something they
will never use. That's why it should be "optional", because it's an
*option* for those that wish to use it.
I'm approaching this from a distribution maintenance point of view,
rather than just what *I* prefer. Personally, I use a ton of tools
and libraries, including all of the GTK+, GIMP, and GNOME libs. I
don't think that everyone will want them installed by default, though.
"apt-get install gcc-3.3" is a no-brainer.
--
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
- Next message: Alan Connor: "Re: Package Managers"
- Previous message: mehrnoosh abedi: "Re: How can I write a module in linux?"
- In reply to: Alan Connor: "Re: Package Managers"
- Next in thread: Alan Connor: "Re: Package Managers"
- Reply: Alan Connor: "Re: Package Managers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
