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

Re: Packaging and installation

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Nicholas Petreley wrote:

> And all someone has to do to subvert the whole system is
> to ./configure;make;make install.  Nothing goes in the
> database.  Are you saying we should stop compiling things
> on our own?  
> Wait - I already know your response...you're talking about
> only those things that comprise LSB compatibility, and
> THOSE things will be in the database.  IMO that's a
> terribly narrow approach to take.  It solves LSB's problems
> but not the problems of the end user who will certainly go
> beyond LSB.  And since LSB is an incredibly tiny portion of
> any complete system, that's quite a big difference. 

Are you saying that the version problem for binaries doesn't exist? Or that
we should ignore versioning problems? Or that we should define some brand
new way of determing version information for items in the filesystem?

Nick, there is no good answer to this (though I do appreciate your sarcastic
response to a serious question). When RPM and dpkg both do things the same
way, there is almost always a good reason. Looking for files in the filesystem
is fine, and appropriate in certain circumstances. It doesn't help me install
my perl script that needs perl 5.6 rather then perl 5.6.1 though. If you can
get away from needing a database for adequate dependency checks, great! I
don't know how to do that.


|            "Who is John Galt?" - Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand		      |
|                                                                             |
|  Linux Application Development  --  http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad   |

Reply to: