[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: assimilating OpenBSD

Is there any reason that the effort couldn't focus more on a 'statically'
linked phylosophy rather than having everything dynamic and cross-linked.  I
know that this dramatically increases the size of the applications
(especially when you are linking GTK or QT onto all your applications...)
But for most of the server side apps are not so huge.  Apple appears to be
taking this approach with OSX.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: eichin@climb-a-tree.thok.org
> [mailto:eichin@climb-a-tree.thok.org]On Behalf Of Mark W. Eichin
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 4:32 PM
> To: Debian-Bsd
> Subject: Re: assimilating OpenBSD
> > Now on the same note...  BSD has a great packaging and porting system,
> > arguably as good if not better than debians.  I like the idea of using
> It might be arguable, but the argument ends very quickly, when I ask
> someone to explain "how do I upgrade something that has
> dependencies".  The BSD side kind of splutters to a halt at that point
> (hint: any answer involving "uninstall the packages that depend on it,
> first" means "thank you for playing, get back to us when you have a
> packaging system"...)
> packages/ports are great for building software *once*.  Experience
> (with debian and elsewhere) makes it pretty clear that no software is
> good enough to stand unchanged for any significant length of time, and
> that smooth upgrading is the key reason to even *have* a packaging
> system...
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: