Re: Package splitting and upgrades
On 03-Mar-02, 15:02 (CST), Joe Wreschnig <email@example.com> wrote:
> This, IMO, is the crux of the problem for which the current state
> of Feta is merely a symptom (and the packaging of Feta will be a
> nonsolution, if nice). APT has a nicely (at least from an external
> viewpoint) designed multiple repository system. There is a nice list
> of available APT sources.
Quite frankly, with very few exceptions and for limited times (e.g.
experimental new versions of packages that I use from developers I
"know" and are soon to be in main), I personally don't have much
interest in packages that are not in the Debian archive system. They
don't get near as widely tested, there's no real expectation that they
comply with Debian Policy (the real strength of Debian, in my opinion),
they're not part of the Debian BTS, and the developer has made little
or no commitment to maintain the packages. A major *point* of Debian is
that I don't need rpmfind. Anything that isn't available from the
Debian mirror I might as well build by hand and put off in /usr/local or
/opt rather than peel apart the package by hand to determine it won't
scrog my system.
Not that any of that should keep you from building whatever tool you
want or deploying in whatever manner meets your needs or makes you
happy. But the fact that the Debian project *is* open to anyone (Yes,
I'm aware of the process, and that it's not worth jumping through the
hoops for everyone, but it is possible) means that there's probably
a lot of us out here who have no desire to automate the gathering of
random packages from the net.
 My new employer uses Redhat for his Linux based product, so
I've been stuck using Redhat lately. To all of you with lingering
inclinations towards Redhat becuase "it has more packages", I say unto
you, "fooey!". Installing anything that wasn't on the Redhat CD is an
exercise in frustration beyond belief. I've built more stuff from source
in the last three months than in the three previous years. Yech.