On December 3, 2013, Michael Torrie wrote: > I used Maildir-formatted e-mail back with a Fedora Core 1 box. I never
> had the dependency problems you state. Also, I don't believe courier-imap > ever was a Fedora standard package, so you can't blame Fedora for your > dependency issues. I was probably using an early version of Dovecot, or > maybe I just built courier myself.. Well, I know I didn't build courier myself. I know I used an RPM. I'm fairly sure I used apt-get to install it from the standard FC2 repos, but I could be wrong (and I know apt-get is usually debian based, I had apt for rpm installed because this was an older box that took for frigging EVER to run yum, where as apt ran just fine). Either way, I did specifically state that this was back in the days of FC2, so a lot could have changed between then and now. :) > That said, none of the dependencies you mention are really a problem, > nor really a waste. Despite your implication you're not really > installing all those database systems. Rather you're just installing > very small shared libraries for potentially accessing those database > systems (IE the API is the only thing installed. And the cost of > breaking all those small library dependencies out into separate packages > is just too high. You don't want to have to have a full and complete > but different version of courier-imap for each permutation of software > combination! I know that goes against your gentoo sensibilities! :) I'm quite familiar with the differences between say, openldap-<version> and openldap-libs-<version> and you're right that many were just the libs. But if my memory is correct (I could be wrong!) openldap wasn't just the -libs package required. Perhaps there wasn't a -libs package available to whoever designed the RPM (whether it was designed by the Fedora maintainers or someone else), but my memory says I had to install openldap itself (the full package) to get courier's RPM happy. And the point wasn't having all these DMBS packages installed, but the fact that this was a very small hard disk drive (< 4GB HDD if I recall, this WAS more than 12 years ago) so I had to REALLY prioritize what went on there, since it was a combo system to be my home e-mail server plus my print/file server, plus the samba server, plus the internet gateway. Those packages, just the libs and what ever else was required, used a large chunk of my HDD that I could have used for other purposes. And I'm also familiar with building RPMs on systems like Fedora. I have personally designed custom RPMs for programs like exim because I wanted to get just the right feature set. I can't say I've ever used git, but doing configure/make/make install is something I've done quite a few times. I do understand your point about trying to install things straight from tarballs though. Certainly doable on a few packages or only a couple servers. But not on a large setup. That's partially (_I_ think) why "Roll your own Linux" never really got too popular. :) Imagine downloading and compiling EVERYTHING from scratch, including glibc and gcc and init (or Systemd in more modern systems). Doable? Oh, absolutely. Doable on a large scale? Not so much. --- Dan On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Dan Egli <[email protected]> wrote: > On December 3, 2013, Levi Pearson wrote: > > > If I was going to spend a bunch of time installing and learning a new > > > distro, I'd try out NixOS (http://nixos.org/) which has my favorite > > > concept of all the distributions. It treats package managment and > > > configuration as part of the same system, > > > > That sounds rather bizzare to me. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you on > that. I'll look over the site a bit, but perhaps you can explain better how > this package managment and configuration works combined? > > > > Out of curosity, if it's a distribution of Linux, why are they calling it > something else (NixOS vs. Nix Linux)? Or, is it not so much Linux as a *NIX > O/S? That's what I'd guess from the name, but I could be wrong. > > > > --- Dan > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Michael Torrie <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12/03/2013 11:10 AM, Lonnie Olson wrote: >> > * Mint >> > - Ugly, old, backwards UI choices >> >> Sounds like a plus in my book. Although Mint may be the distro >> developing Cinnamon and Mate, the big distros now support them both out >> of the box. Fedora for sure has them both. >> >> Despite the age of the core technologies, Mate+Compiz work best for me. >> And Mate can live alongside Gnome 3 and Cinnamon, so I'm not giving up >> anything. I still use some Gnome 3 apps. >> >> Cinnamon is okay, but I like the customizations I have made in Compiz, >> and I have to have a pager that shows at least window outlines like >> Mate/Gnome2 does. I've tried to put in a feature request to Cinnamon >> for the pager thing, but they didn't seem to understand just what I was >> getting at. Ahh well. If anyone knows an extension that can give me >> this feature, I would very much like to know about it. >> >> /* >> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net >> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug >> Don't fear the penguin. >> */ >> > > /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
