On 1/2/07, Janne Karhunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 01 January 2007 21:55, Mark Goldstein wrote:
I have been wondering if package managers as we know them today can never be proper solution to software installation. If people are to use it, it needs to be better and easier than 'setup.exe'.
Personally I do not like "setup.exe" style. First, I always disable autoexec, because I hate when something starts working out of my control. I do not like it because it's hard to know what it writes and where to. Some installations are better and ask me what I want (well, not always they do what I've chosen). I prefer tool that can do stuff quickly and without too much user intervention, but also allows user full control if she/he wants.
Is it really possible to perfectly hide overly complex package dependencies with complex tools around it? It doesn't seem that way yet. Package managers have been 'almost there' for a decade now.
I was quite comfortable with primitive tools in Slackware (based on classical tar/gz/bz2), but I also liked YaST before it was broken in 10.1. I do not think it is possible to fully automate this process (there will always be situations like that one). -- Mark Goldstein -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
