On 04/12/2014 00:28, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I am really boggled by people wanting to run LTS versions of code with > old versions of tools and expecting to run newer versions of other > things. > > More constructively, it's perfectly possible to build newer perl in a > different prefix. Just because there's an old perl in the base system > doesn't mean someone can't do that; that's what you'd have to do if the > base system didn' have perl. Exactly! The problem is, those who use distro_X only want to use packages released by distro_X's repo, in some cases its pure laziness, in others, not so, some of those package managers have I'm sure been designed by ex Microsoft employees, because try remove one thing, and the package manager will try remove 3/4 of the system. IIRC with Redhat you can tell it to singular remove that program and ignore the deps, so it is, or wasn't, that bad compared the debian's apt. The remainder are just lazy, or don't live on the edge :) footnotes: I use slackware, yes its releases come with latest versions of most things, and updates move with upstreams due to slackwares philosophy and releases are maintained for usually 5 or more years, but even then, the packages can't cater for all configurations, since its no hassle using upstream sources, it wont break anything, and if I only need X and Y built into a binary, I *know* only X and Y is built in, not massive bloat in having A-W, and Z as well, so updating perl for instance is a no brainer should I desire, I have requested the -current repo be updated to 5.20.1 fopr benefit of all slackers, but if I can a rejection on that request, it'll take all of 20 mins to install the bastard from source myself :) (well last time I built it it took 20 mins - might be tad longer now days lol)
