On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, P.A.M. van Dam wrote: > > This is the real issue. If you could select the 'high level' groups > > and only deal with the components if you want the option it would > > be fine. But if I select a group I want it to mean 'install what > > it takes to make this work', not 'tell me about some other things > > I need to do first in some unknown order'. > > It would be really nice to have some highlever package order, like > some commercial UNIX vendors have. For example one might have the choice > to install everything as it suits himself or choose some highlevel packages > like a KDE environment using Dutch locales or a OpenLook environent or just > good old non-graphic install. It makes it much easier for newbies. We need > some hierarchy in the package structures. > > > > > Les Mikesell > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Best regards, > Pascal
I'm sorry to be dogmatic, but I'm going to say one more time that I like things the way they are. If something depends on seperately maintained library xyz it is not good but *GREAT* to know about it from the start. The dependency structure sends this message to users load and clear, in a way that a lumped package scheme would not even if a full description of all dependencies were given when such a package was installed. I really had no clue about the high level of software interdependence when I started with slackware, and it hurt me continually. I think a little pain with dselect in the beginning would have saved me a lot of grief later. Lets give a more understandable dselect a chance. It could be made infinitely more comprehensible. Am I right in thinking that when one package you include during a 'dependence session' requires another package, you get a new sort of recursive dependence session? I feel that I shouldn't really have to be confused about this sort of thing. __ I like six eggs when starting on a journey. Fried - not poached. And mind you don't break 'em. I won't eat a broken egg. -- Thorin Oakenshield