On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 03:16:44PM +1100, Rod Butcher wrote: > I've thought about the "rpm hell" bit before. I notice that some > commercial apps (like Opera) seem to bundle everything required into a > single tarball and say "just install this". Do they achieve this by > statically linking in all the required libraries, and is this what is
Almost certainly. The alternative is providing your own versions of various shlibs, and either hiding them away privately somewhere (in which case you may as well static link and be done with it) or blotting the system-provided ones (in which case the problem reduces to the Windows installation system). > done in Windows ? No, but it probably should be. > I feel that it IS asking too much of non-technical > users to "install x and y before installing z", especially when > installation of x.0.2 gives the message "conflicts with x.0.1" or > requires installation of v and w. How many years has it been since this was actually a real problem? RPM-based distros have had apt, yum, up2date, and whatever else for quite some time now -- you just point people at your <whatever> repository, and the package installer automagically installs whatever else needs to be installed. Or, of course, there's this weird thing we have now called LSB, which is supposed to solve all of these problems for us. - Matt -- "Left to themselves, [marketers] would butt-tag us like polar bears to track our buying habits and bombard our phones and emails and computer screens with ads benefitting them and their clients." --- Tsu Dho Nimh, NANAE
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
