> Just to be clear: one does know how timestampers work - including what > are their limitations: they have severe problems and should not be > relied on for any rigourous work; they are naive 'toy's.
If you find something else fits your expectations better, then nothing else will do. > You are claiming that pio works in situations where it does not work. All I can attest to is it has for me for 15 years now. I value the simplicity of pio. It is integrated into my build process in ways that allow it to function. > Therefore, what you claimed in an earlier post - 'selling' pio to "Selling"? It's free, on the hints page. > possibly unsuspecting users - is incorrect: for, pio does NOT reliably > generate 'list of contents' for packages. Period. If you expect a package manager to imagine what might have been installed under other circumstances, you expect a great deal more than I. If you need a package manager that lets you install several packages simultaneously and keep them all straight, you need more than I. All pio does is detect files in specified directories that were not there previously, were but are no longer, or changed timestamps. If that's not good enough for you, then pio is not the package for you. It works very well for others of us. > for the vast majority of packages - for which the user has not the prior > knowledge that pio will FAIL for the item in question: and so the user I ALWAYS examine not only the build instructions in the books, but also the README & INSTALL files, and have a "chl" alias (./configure help|less) which I run. I would never advise ANYBODY to just rip through a cmmi without doing "due diligence" to see how the package is meant to be installed, period! "No prior knowledge" is never any excuse--one deserves whatever befalls! > does not know that pio has FAILed to do what its author claimed it can The claim is: it is a timestamper. Anything beyond that is imaginary. > do reliably correctly; and so the user by default does not know to just > adjust the cmmi for the particular item. JFC!. If that were all it takes, why do we even *have* LFS & BLFS books? There'd be no need. Just get all the packages and start ripping off cmmi's and that'd be all you need. Yeah, right. So here's a corrollary claim for using pio: ALL package installs must be investigated. > Surely you're not now advocating pio as useful in security work! I wouldn't even advise a LFS/BLFS build for security work! And your argument is a strawman--I have never advocated it for "security work". > You claimed that pio can create 'list of contents' for a package; > and that those list-of-contents can be used for uninstallations. So it has for 15 years that I've used it according to its facilities. Experience counts. > Both of your claims are BOGUS. And anyone relying on what you claim > pio can do, risks data loss and disruption to software operation. pio will not save you from yourself! No more than if you drive your car on the wrong side of the road. > As such, and if that is the standard that you and your pio are operating > at, then the pio hint & related materials, should be withdrawn from > the site. You're qualified to decide that for all users, are you? I really have no idea why you are so angry that pio is a tool of given functionality, and does not meet your own imposed criteria. > You just don't get it. That only works if pio builds such lists > correctly. And it does not build such lists correctly. It should be clear to everybody else now how pio works and how to use it. It's up to each of them to decide for themselves whether they can work with it. pio isn't a dictator, just a tool. Do not drive screws with a hammer. Do not pound in nails with a screwdriver. I'm done with you. No need to reply. -- Paul Rogers [email protected] Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
