On 2/3/09 11:19 AM, "Mike Walter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is this the vendor's long-term answer, requiring old code to support their > app? Yes, or at least a modified code package that uses the same name as a package supplied with the OS. They also "recommend" bypassing dependency checking to force installation of this package, which strikes me as flat out wrong. What's the point of a software configuration management system if you bypass it or allow vendors to bypass it? I feel that if I paid money for a package, I should be able to expect it to install properly without bypassing the configuration management system, and without it causing the system management tooling to report problems. I'm glad that the general opinion appears to support my assertion that the vendor needs to fix their software packaging or installation if they must use a variant of a system package.
