Re: just wondering...
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 07:10:53AM +0000, David Whitmarsh wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 10:05:57PM -0800, Edward S. Peschko wrote:
>
> > I surmised that the Binary tag was generated from source packages -
> > my question is, why the complexity? Why bother with having multiple synonyms for
> > the same package? Why not just have a source package name?
> >
> > Example: perl generates
> >
> > perl-doc
> > perl-suid
> > libcgi-fast-perl
> > perl-debug
> > libperl5.6
> > libperl-dev
> > perl-modules
> > perl-base
> >
> > and perl.
> >
> > I sincerely doubt that any of these 'subpackages' could function separately
> > from each other.
> They certainly are. perl-base as an example contains a minimal packaging
> of perl without certain options. It is designed to be be small and
> contain only the base perl interpreter. I for instance have no need for
> perl-doc on any of my servers, only on my one desktop machine where I do
> development work.
ok, fair enough. I see the distinction now, although I think that this is still a
bit of overkill. libperl5.6, libperl-dev, and perl-modules, for example, are seldom
useful on their own - but as others pointed out, for space reasons I can see why they
were split up.
> the packages file
> (like /var/lib/apt/lists/http.us.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages)
> does contain this information, though it is easier to get from
> apt-cache(8) or http://packages.debian.org/
apt-cache is useless to me, since on solaris I can't seem to find appropriate
binary packages. True, I may be looking at the wrong distributions (woody), but then
again I'm sort of in the dark - I can't seem to connect to any of the ftp.*debian.org
sites through anything but apt-get. (see separate email)
> > c-client
> > clear
> > crypt
> > d
> > db4.1
> > distcc
> > ELFIO
> > fontconfig
> > gmp
> > graphicsmagick
> > inetutils
> > libcharset1
> > libiconv
> > libintl
> > man
> > mktemp
> > mod_auth_ntsec
> > mod_dav
> > mod_php4
> > mod_ssl
> > more
> > naim
> > opengl
> > shutdown
> > which
> >
> this isn't useful without knowing the contents of your
> /etc/apt/sources.list
I believe I posted this on a previous email, but here goes:
---
deb ftp://ftp.no.debian.org/debian woody main contrib non-free
deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian woody main contrib non-free
deb ftp://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian woody main contrib non-free
deb-src ftp://ftp.no.debian.org/debian woody main contrib non-free
deb-src ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian woody main contrib non-free
deb-src ftp://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian woody main contrib non-free
---
this is running on 5.8 solaris.
> Specifically choose a better subject line.
that's true too, but I haven't exactly had the easiest time with debian, either
in the compilation of it, installation of it, or the 'answering of questions'
category.
I tried to install it onto solaris (0.6.18), needed to hack around a
couple of infinite loops inherent when building with make, needed to add
a couple of workarounds to get solaris to recognize that debSystem was an actual
object to be linked in at runtime. (before it was giving me "can't recognize system
type' errors.
On top of that, I found out that there were hard-coded paths in init.cc and
debsystem.cc pointing to locations to store various files which are useless to
me since I need to make apt-get run without root. And on top of all this,
I try to post from google to this list only to have it go into a bit bucket,
then revert to my work account with 'proper' subject lines and 'proper'
bug-reports only to have no response.
So, I apologize if it looks like I'm going off half-cocked, but my experience
with debian has not been the smoothest. Making a provocative post seems the
only way to get decent response. If the list would like, I could parse out - again -
every single issue that I've encountered and add them as bug reports.
Ed
(
ps - the last point 'proper' subject lines and 'proper' bug-reports leading
to no response may be a bit inaccurate, but it is true, I've got a much better
idea about how debian works from just reading the last couple responses to
this thread. So I'm not convinced that the whole 'squeaky wheel' adage is
untrue.
)
Reply to: