On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Nick Rout wrote:

> This is a good post.

Can we put a link to Nick's post on the CLUG webpage please :)

Tim

(post included for reference:)

> On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 22:02:51 +0100
> Jim Cheetham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 08:02:56AM +1200, Jason wrote:
> > > Chris, with all due respect, you are wrong IMHO. URPMI works GREAT and I
> > > have yet had it to fail for me...
> > > ...
> > > BTW, there are basically 3 ways to install software in Linux, APT, RPM
> > > and from Source. All have their benefits but with modern packaging
> > > systems dependency hell is a thing of the past for the most part.
> >
> > Dependancy hell is still present in all software distribution methods.
> > ALL of them ...
> >
> > The only way to avoid dependancy problems is to only use packages from a
> > single coherent authority. The moment you try to mix-and-match (which is
> > very common, because whatever package authority you use, will have
> > different goals and interests to yourself) you open yoursef up to
> > dependancy problems.
> >
> > The moment you have anything on your system that did not arrive through
> > your packaging system, problems start to brew.
> >
> > This has nothing to do with the actual packaging system in use, be it
> > RPM, apt, or anything. It's a function of how closely you follow the
> > updates from your central authority.
> >
> > Now, rpm has been criticised in the past, because a package could tell
> > you that it had unsatisfied dependancies, but had no way of telling you
> > how to satify them. I understand that this has been largely addressed
> > with the systhesis list feature.
> >
> > Debian's packaging system had a better knowledge of the "whole world",
> > and such apparently unresolveable dependancies were much rarer. BSD
> > ports is also much more tightly controlled, and less likely to fail.
> > Gentoo seems to have it's packages in order, too ... as does Fink for
> > OSX.
> >
> > However, all of them will cause problems if you don't update often
> > enough. Eventually a package version will come out that needs an update
> > to a core package - one that either you don't feel like downloading,
> > because it's too big, or you don't want to install, because it will
> > require downtime/reboot, or other large-scale changes to your system. At
> > that point in time, you begin to diverge from the central authority,
> > because your goals are different from theirs :-)
> >
> > A couple of examples - I have a FreeBSD server that has a version of NTP
> > thats got a security vulnerability. The fix is a newer version, but
> > that's only been issued for the 'current' version of FreeBSD, not the
> > one I'm running. Either I upgrade my whole OS, which involves downtime
> > on the server, or I do without the ntp package. Planning to upgrade the
> > OS takes a lot of time, it will happen "eventually". In the meantime, I
> > have removed the vulnerable NTP package.
> > (To be fair, BSDs are often set up to download and build everything, but
> > they don't actually install anything until you ask for it ... which is
> > similar to having a binary distribution, at one level)
> >
> > On my Mac, I'm running X and many useful programs, but it's on the end
> > of a slow dialup link. I've installed The GIMP, so I have all the GTK
> > libraries. I'd like to use Konqueror, but I haven't yet got any of the
> > KDE libraries, and they're huge. So I won't install Konqueror, because I
> > don't want to spend n hours of my life handholding the modem through the
> > required downloads.
> >
> > So, if you're happy with the choice of packages your central authority
> > pumps out, you have the bandwidth to download them all, and you don't
> > mind occasional downtime while installing them ... then you're probably
> > running a workstation on an office LAN. In which case, you'll probably
> > be completely happy with urpmi :-) and Mandrake ...
> >
> > -jim
> >
>
> --
> Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>

Tim Wright

Assistant Lecturer
Department of Computer Science
University of Canterbury

http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~tnw13

Reply via email to