On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, John Summerfield wrote: > Programs that have builtin ideas about where their components are will > fail if their expectations are not met; gcc, perl and exmh are > candidates (I suspect they're okay) as is dhcpd which I suspect will > fail.
In the "Hints and Tips" talk I gave at last SHARE and at the VM Tech Conference, I mentioned an ad hoc strategy that I picked up while working in academia. I find it *still* to be more flexible and less intrusive than RPM, SMIT, pkgadd, etc. And yet it does not prevent these others from continuing to work. The fundamental requirement is to separate software residence from software reference. The latter is what John mentions: programs need to find their support content (if any). Some programs stand on their own (BASH, for example). But packages of any significant complexity will not. No solution here. Just a statement. > Of course, software you build yourself you can coerce into shape. Yep. And that's how I have had to build a few things. Would that more could pick up on some open-ended schemes like the one I mention here.
