On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:16:09 +0800, "Franki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand this issue and I comiserate.... > > Think about this though, KDE would have been much harder to write (and one > hell of alot bigger most likely),, had it not used the QT libs, they > conntain all the code for the GUI generating and numerous other things.. > The benefits of using libs are at least two fold, if you have many apps > using the same libs, they need only be loaded into memory once for all of > them, which speeds things up greatly. They also provide for a more unified > look between apps, (like KDE apps for example) > > Ditto with Gnome and its libs and nearly every other package.. > > If all packages had all the libs they required in them, then Mandrake would > probably come on 8 CD's for just the basics and one distro would have > hundreds of copies of the same libs in different RPM's... > > I personally think that they should offer full dependencies versions of > RPM's for the newbies for download on the web... > but it wouldn't be productive on the CD's to do it.. I believe you are referring to statically-linked RPMs. The problem with these is that, as the name suggests, they are static. For example, the statically-linked version of Opera will not benefit from upgrading QT, whilst dynamically-linked apps will. Open-source development is far more dependency-based, and so upgrading a lib like QT or GTK can benefit all apps that rely on them. > I think two other things would help,. a gui and console tool that does smart > tarball installs and updates the rpm database for that app, and one that can > get dependencies for you,, (goes to a mandrake update site list...etc etc. > or asks for the CD, or both) preferably the same app. Checkinstall is a "console tool that does smart tarball installs and updates the rpm database for that app". Apt is an app "that can get dependencies for you,, (goes to a mandrake update site list...etc etc. or asks for the CD, or both)". Urpmi is a similar app, designed specifically for Mandrake. It has a GUI frontend: Software Manager (AKA RPMdrake). > and a self extracting tarball, (sort of like winzips self extracting file,, > a new tarball format that can have a shell or perl script wrapper around the > actual tarfile that untars and starts the install for you.. (then updates > the RPM databse...downloads dependencies etc etc....) even if it was 10% > bigger then a standard tarball, people would go for it because of the ease > of install and removal and "smart installing" features, you could even make > an app that keeps a updatable database of files that have a certain > extension, like .exec and it runs suid or something and makes the file > executable and runs the app if its clicked, (so that newbies don't have to > learn chmod straight away) it would be potentially a security risk, but if > the program is smart enough, it could be capable of foreseeing possible > problems and risks, and then avoiding them...and it could prompt and warn > for packages not listed in its database. > its no more dangerous then downloading windows setup apps.. (although thats > not saying much really is it?? ) No, it isn't. And this is why it isn't done. Newbies generally know nothing about security, so it is best to give them as little opportunity as possible to compromise their system's security. > They would make a difference me thinks... and the latter one would bring us > closer to the day where we are more powerful (compiling as opposed to > installing binaries) and yet as easy to install... I think that would go > along way to helping the newies issues.. (and sometimes the rest of us too.) > > Also, Mandrake should consider a Prefab lib section, (if selected during > install, default would be on unless there are space issues) of as many of > the common libs as possible,,, that way, even if they didn't get used, most > people would be willing to put up with an extra 50 or 100MB of libs on their > hard drive if it meant that 98% of lib dependencies never happend again.. > This is already done to some degree, but not enough I think.. > > anyone with a 4 gig or above hard disk could put up with that,, (and like I > said, make it install option.) Many newbies just do a full install. With today's huge hard drives, a 2GB installation is not much at all. If the entire first CD is installed, most dependencies should be taken care of. If a newbie uses a tool like Software Manager to install apps, they will not have to bother with dependencies at all. > just some thoughts.. > > > rgds > > Frank > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrei Raevsky > Sent: Tuesday, 18 September 2001 3:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [newbie] what is wrong with dependencies > > > Frankly - I am rather frustrated with the issues of dependencies. > > Almost each time I try to install an rpm file, or compile a tar.gz, I get a > failed/missing dependencies error. I was told that this is "just as in > Windows in which programs need dlls". This is simply not true. When a > Win32 developer prepares a package for publication he includes ALL the dlls > needed (at least in 99% of the cases) and the install wizard then checks to > see if there is a need to add them to the system or if something more recent > is already installed. > > Now WHY don't rpms come with ALL the dependencies they need? Is it to > reduce the size of the packages? But then, would it not be better to define > a list of "main" dependencies which ALL distributions would install on each > machine (even if the installation type is not "development")? > > Also - sometimes, a dependency needs another dependency. What for? If the > two dependencies are developed by the same people, why don't they > immediately package them together. > > Finally, can I get any "missing" dependency from sites such as rpmfind.net? > Are all dependencies rpm-packaged. > > I am sorry if these questions sound silly to those of you who are "advanced > newbies" (-: I'm the real "newbie-newbie" :-) but take it from a 100% > committed linux-lover as I have become: this is a problem which does NOT > exist in this form in the much-hated Windows world. > > Any explanations would be welcome, cheers! > > > > Linux user 226850 -- Sridhar Dhanapalan. "There are two major products that come from Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
