Jason Costomiris wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 09:40:51PM -0600, David Talkington wrote:
>: Nothing will explode. When a pine rpm insists that it *needs*
>: kerberos,
>
>You mean like when pine is linked against the kerberos libs? If it's
>linked against them, YOU NEED THEM.
Interesting. Both this, and the perl/tcsh issue below, were issues I
encountered during installs of 6.2. If I select Pine, I'm told that I
need to install a couple of kerberos libraries; similarly, if I choose
Perl but not tcsh, I get complaints. Nevertheless, if I do not elect
to satisfy the dependencies, both packages will install, and both will
run fine.
Why might that be?
>Oh, most of us prefer not breaking the packaging system, making system
>maintenance easier, particularly when spread over many machines.
There certainly are advantages, and I don't mean to discourage their
use if they work for you. Trouble is, when you work with several
different types of systems, keeping track of the proprietary locations
of config files is a royal pain. (Pine's a good example; so are squid
and apache.) I like 'em standard. And things like Apache ... we have
a plethora of modules involved, and just can't get what we need out of
a package manager.
I've been through several bouts of circular dependencies like those
described by the original poster, and I've concluded that rpm is great
for installs and base system binaries, but actually makes elective
software harder to manage and control.
It wasn't my intent to suggest that rpm isn't useful -- just that it
isn't always the best way. I'm not an expert; just relating my
experiences banging these things around.
-d
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
