On 5/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But again a real eg: http://www.ltsp.org lbe used to build, does not NOW. Where were you (in terms of versions) when it DID build. How do I tell my friend that it did build around Marchish with all the latest upgrades, but does not now. Go back to 'then' and it will build.
I should let this go but I won't :) I think you're saying that apt-get doesn't cope when you mix managed packages and custom source builds. If you need to a constant base environment to build your packages on then don't update your system. If you want your system to evolve nicely over time then use apt on a consistent package repository and it will.
Again it is much cleaner to say 'install RH9, choose DEV environment, add get-text', it works: a repeatable, exact solution for ever.
Not really a problem with apt, that's a problem with making changes. How are you adding "get-text"? However you do it, if you add the wrong version you have the same problem. If you add the right version then if you had run apt against a repository with the right version you'd also be fine. I'm not suggesting that building from a known cd and adding stuff to it to get a standard environment is a bad idea, just that it has nothing to do with whether apt-get is a good tool or paradigm.
Again horses for courses: whose building 'that version' of LBE (used by 1000s customers worldwide for POS touch terminals) and needs to continue building THAT version.
Then don't change the version. Or create packages that roll nicely with updates. Apt is there so that changes within the packaged environment run smoothly, not so that unpackaged source trees build nicely on it. Seems like criticising a stapler for being a crummy hole punch. Cheers.....Steve -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
