Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...
Miles Fidelman wrote:
>Martin Read wrote:
>> On 01/11/14 01:53, lee wrote:
>>> It doesn't need these code paths. The library doesn't do anything
>>> unless you do have the software actually running which the library makes
>>> useable --- at least that's what was said.
>>>
>>> Of course, not all cases are the same, yet in this case, the library
>>> shouldn't be installed unless the software it is for is installed.
>>
>> Gentoo and Funtoo are ----> over there, just like they were months ago
>> when you first started complaining about systemd on debian-user.
>>
>> If you move over to using them instead of Debian, you'll probably be
>> happier (because you'll have more control over what software runs on
>> your systems and how it's configured) and the Debian maintainers will
>> probably be happier (because there will be one fewer person haranguing
>> them for refusing to embrace combinatorial explosion).
>>
>> Everyone wins.
>
>Right. This sounds more and more like "we're going to rewrite the
>rules, and if you don't like it, we're taking our ball and going home."
Various people have tried to explain how a binary distribution like
Debian works (build packages with all options included by defauls) and
how shared libraries work on Linux (all the libraries need to be there
to satisfy symbol resolution at run time, even if none of the code is
ever used). When those explanations fell on deaf ears, people have
resorted to analogy. That was clearly a waste of time too.
These are standard "rules" that have existed for many years, there is
no rewriting going on at all. Instead, it seems there are people who
won't, or don't want to, understand explanations when given. For
people who claim to have technical backgrounds, that's a surprising
(and very frustrating) problem.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user'
as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver." -- Daniel Pead
Reply to: