On 2016-10-17 19:44, a...@alexpilon.ca wrote:
Throw away your Linux-ish idea of "everything is a package",
What the heck is wrong with that?
Relax, okay, just relax.
And why argue against, if you mentioned it in the first place? I was
just pointing out an inconsistency in how it was presented, as if /bin
wasn't managed by the package manager. Geez.
if you're following the /usr/* hierarchy, then /bin is not meant to be
messed with consistently, package managers are not supposed to touch it.
and take a look at BSD systems, they provide tarballs for updating
your system,
Whole system tarballs? So we're doing stable releases or big lumbering
version changes? If so, great. I'm out of here.
No, look at OpenBSD's snapshots[0] which is basically, a rolling release
system.
which are maintain by the mainstream distribution, and are not under
the
risk of breaking because of a silly package manager mistake.
That's not an argument. You can break things with the other methods.
You
blaming the package manager, or are you confusing it with all the
libpng's ABI or libsfml's ABI changed and half my packages are on the
old version bullshit?
that's dynamic linking issue.
> Some of us currently use package managers that bootstrap the system
> though.
I have nothing against this, but I prefer the BSD way of doing it.
Can we just say "unpack a tarball?" [, chroot, configure]?
there is no need for the chroot...
