On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:14:24AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > That's too bad; that's a disease of people thinking that what they do is > the main thing and it's ok for people to have to expend effort on it. > Obviously if it were that way for all 769 packages installed on my box > nothing would ever get done.
Yes, I've given up on installing anything other than single-file scripts that require something more than "sudo aptitude install foo". I tracked all software I used with CVS back in the day, but it just doesn't scale. > I'll also second Randy's notion that dependencies are bad, especially on > large things. I'm all for visualization, but I'd like to see the core > tahoe-lafs be able to write files that have a machine-parseable trace, > and then a separate package to look at them, so that a working > filesystem install isn't burdened with javascript etc. Many security people who see mention of javascript in a filesystem's dependencies would probably move on. Yes, I know you're using HTTP as a RPC layer, but most filesystems are, well, a little lower-level than that. > I realize there's a tension between the unix and windows concepts of > usability. Obviously i'm coming from the unix side. Reminds me of the debate on whether or not to include printf in the C standard library. Sounds reasonable enough, unless you're writing for an embedded system like an elevator controller. -- It asked me for my race, so I wrote in "human". -- The Beastie Boys My emails do not have attachments; it's a digital signature that your mail program doesn't understand. | http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ If you are a spammer, please email [email protected] to get blacklisted.
pgpp28yr2mCgB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
