On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 2:06 PM Joris Lambrecht <commandl...@protonmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the perspective. Here's what i hope comes across as a polite > rant as a reply. It aches me and i notice it aches others everywhere. > > I spent 20 years on and off with Linux, starting with a CT magazine CD > somewhere late 90's. I've really grown stone cold tired of the package > management nonsense with unmaintained, poorly maintained software. > Except for the big packges like desktops that is for which no sane > compilation procudure exists. > > I can appreciate this, but I'm always remembering that many of these pieces of software are being maintained gratis, without any expectation of recompensense (or thanks, even!). That said, you are not wrong - managing widely-available downloads is a crazy process! Also get irritated with the so called distro specific narrative. There > are exactly 2 systems, Debian and RedHat of which Debian is universally > compatible and Redhat is not so much. It should not be an issue really. > This implies developing compatible with the RedHat system is alwasy > going to work on Debian, not vice versa. > > I only use Redhat for work, but every time it's an exercise in remembering "Is it yum? Is it rpm?" and I am sympathetic. That being said, and maybe I'm a different sort of outlier here, but there are a bunch of excellent operating systems, only a few of which derive from Linux. They all handle things differently, too, to be fair. When it comes to package managers almost none of the work well or if > they work well there is no sensible package maintenance happening. Or > they build a great set of software like Sabayon Linux and stop the > disro. > > The times i found myself downloading source and compiling from scratch > to have all features and flags enabled became too many. Yet every time > i go back almost to not using package managers. Such as I end up with > now with BaseX 🙂 > > By now i'm contemplating a no-package manager custom Linux distroy with > update scripts for my personal choice of tools. Simply to avoid the > cruft and 99% meaningless software in most distributions. Maybe i build > it all on BaseX to manage configuration, compilation and other stuff. > > I'm a niche user who also happens to be picky and mostly atypical as an > IT profile. The future will probably bring hard choices and hard work > for me because of it. > > That resonates! Good luck (and welcome to BaseX) > > Br, > > Joris > > Bridger > On Wed, 2021-03-17 at 13:47 -0400, Bridger Dyson-Smith wrote: > > Joris - > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:40 PM commandline-be > > <commandl...@protonmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for this. > > > > > > > > > > No problem and my pleasure. > > > Basically I am pondering why I should use a packaged version and > > > why not. > > > > > > > > > Why: I think there's an advantage to having a OS-based package that's > > readily available - it's certainly very convenient to say `sudo yum > > install basex` or `pkg install basex` or whatever your package > > management expression happens to be, and whammo! you have a system- > > wide BaseX installation. > > > > Why Not: > > * someone has to maintain the package! Keep it up to date with minor > > version bumps (one of the very nicest things about BaseX is how > > quickly Christian and Co. respond to bugs and errors - minor bug > > patches are infrequent but when there's an issue, there's a fix very > > quickly), and modifying the default file paths to match your OS' > > expectations. > > * do you really need it installed system-wide? I've found that, at > > least for my use-cases, an install to my home directory is sufficient > > - but I'm not doing anything complicated! It would be great to hear > > other user stories about this, which reminds me of a different email > > I need to send to this list! > > > > > > > > I did use the most recent .jar to test and it works well but the > > > what about the server part etc. > > > > > > > > > > If you grab the ZIP archive, everything you'd want is included (http > > server, GUI, client/server). > > > > > Br > > > > > > Joris > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > Bridger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht -------- > > > Aan 17 mrt. 2021 18:07, Bridger Dyson-Smith < > > > bdysonsm...@gmail.com> schreef: > > > > > > > > Hi Joris, > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 5:39 AM commandline-be > > > > <commandl...@protonmail.com> wrote: > > > > > ok, thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If i can i will try and figure out an upgrade approach or see > > > > > if i can run a backport which does have the more recent version > > > > > available. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've found that something like this following works very well for > > > > me across several operating systems: > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > cd ~/bin > > > > mkdir basex-src basex-data > > > > wget https://files.basex.org/releases/BaseX.zip > > > > unzip BaseX.zip > > > > rm -rf basex/src basex/data > > > > ln -s ~/bin/basex-src ~/bin/basex/src; ln -s ~/bin/basex-data > > > > ~/bin/basex-data > > > > ``` > > > > You can include the ~/bin/basex directory path in your > > > > environmental $PATH and you're off to the races. > > > > > > > > Subsequent updates are basically grabbing the ZIP archive, > > > > unpacking it, removing the default src and data directories, and > > > > recreating the symbolic links. > > > > All of your database info is kept separately from the defaults, > > > > so you don't worry about overwriting in an upgrade. > > > > > > > > It's still manual and necessitates some steps, but it's been an > > > > easy method for me across several different unix-like operating > > > > systems (Redhat, Void, and FreeBSD) that don't have a package for > > > > installation. > > > > > > > > I know some other people have posted similar approaches here on > > > > the mailing list, but I can't think of an easy search term to > > > > help locate them. > > > > > > > > > Essentialy, i dislike Ubuntu a lot and Arch well, i never got > > > > > round to arch really. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > Joris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HTH > > > > Best, > > > > Bridger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - - - > > > > > mailto:commandl...@protonmail.com > > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > > > > On Wednesday, 17 March 2021 10:35, Christian Grün > > > > > <christian.gr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Linux is eays, everything is a file. It are the specifics > > > > > which make it hard, particularly configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. At the moment, there is no automatized process to get > > > > > the > > > > > > Debian/Ubuntu distribution updates automatized. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think my issue with the Preferences panel may come from > > > > > running the most recent basex and it overwriting configuration > > > > > files since it writes a message to screen saying it overwrites > > > > > the configuration file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the insight. If you want to stick with the old > > > > > version of > > > > > > BaseX, you can delete the .basexgui file (which includes the > > > > > GUI > > > > > > configuration) to resolve the issue. > > > > > > > >
