On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Andy Green wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tuesday 11 November 2003 12:32, John Hodrien wrote:
>
> > Once you've got an RPM database that only loosely reflects what you've
> > actually got installed you'll get into this situation more and more.
>
> Wow, I guess you never had to touch a .tar.gz, or a binary-only thing like
> flash or nVidia... or pull something from CVS and cook it to get a broken
> thing working... Welcome To The Real World, Neo, where not everything you
> need is packaged.
No you misunderstand what I meant. If you work with tarballs that's fine, but
you don't have dependencies defined there. Once you're faking things to keep
RPMS happy, it just ends up as a big quagmire. It's fine mixing non-package
managed code, and package-managed code, but once you type --nodeps you should
always realise you're not doing it right (which is fine as long as you know
that).
> > Or maybe people just enjoy living in a world of pain?
>
> I'm happy when I can get on with my work with a minimum of detours into
> mysteries. If a later RPM with a real .so.3 wants to crap on my symlink I'm
> happy.
I just feel that you're creating detours into mysteries in the future.
jh
--
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
-- Voltaire
