On Saturday, June 05, 2010 07:52:45 Bruno Haible wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > packages install way too much cruft that changes over versions to sanely
> > track without a PM, and `make uninstall` is way too inconsistent and
> > "helpful" to even think about trusting.
>
> The solution to this
Hi Richard,
Richard Jones wrote:
> > Where does the thinking come from that "there must be only one instance
> > of every package"?
> ...
> My experience of the goodness of packaging systems comes from my use
> of OSes like Minix and FreeBSD which don't have good (or any)
> packaging systems, and
On Friday, June 04, 2010 05:05:56 Bruno Haible wrote:
> Where does the thinking come from that it is bad to have something not
> recognized by the package system?
because it is bad. i rarely install packages onto my system anymore without a
way of tracking them via my PM. if i do, i leverage DI
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 11:05:56AM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Where does the thinking come from that "there must be only one instance
> of every package"? From Microsoft Windows?
I've hardly ever used MS Windows, but I do know they have no packaging
system to speak of and often install multiple,
Hi Richard,
> > Why did you choose to ignore the contents of the INSTALL file and go
> > searching for a distribution specific spec file instead? I'd like to
> > know. The 'buildballs' project is attempting to address issues like this.
>
> I think it's fairly obvious why I'd want to build an RPM
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 10:04:28PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Let me repeat it: We have GNU standards that guarantee you that
> ./configure
> make
> make install
> must work everywhere. This *is* the "easy install" that anyone must be
> able to use.
>
> Why did you choose to ignore the con
