On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Still, please provide them. With only 8 editors who answered the poll, > the correlation coefficients involving the "I am an editor" checkbox > have an expected relative error of 35%, and you can bring this down to > 33% (just a joke - the error of estimating the error is of course > larger than those 2%).
What package management requirements the book uses aren't really that important to me, which is why I didn't answer. I'd much rather just follow what the community wants. But, if you're interested in what I consider important from a package manager, you can probably put an X in every box. After messing around with my own package manager and finding out all the limitations, I realized I really do want all those features provided by the big guys, even at the sacrifice of some automation. I personally lean towards RPM because I'm most familiar with Fedora and I conceptually like the idea of keeping all the information in a single file, unlike dpkg where you have a splattering of files. But I wouldn't be opposed to any package manager that people want to use, no matter how simplistic. I'm always free to do what I want to do. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
