On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 13:19 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 12:39, Andy Green wrote: > > > > > >> Right on spot. Everything installation was a bandaid over inflexible > > >> package management post installation to the point that the users felt > > >> that just selecting everything would save them a lot of potential pain > > >> later. > > > > > > The part about saving time is still probably true. Who wants to > > > be in the middle of something and run into missing programs > > > needed to complete it? And if you don't have at least one > > > > Hum well if the things are really needed for automated tasks they should > > be dependencies, and so always be available. > > No they shouldn't. You can run any command from any other > command without anyone needing to know that you might > try that. Unix-like systems are supposed to be a set of tools, > each including all the others. > > > If you mean you suddenly > > discover that you needed some utility or app on a larger scale then you > > can just yum it in. > > If you are doing something interactive, don't mind taking a > break and starting over, and have a good internet connection. > Sorry that you feel the community owes you an "instant response" install. I guess they should include EVERY package that has ever been created just so you can get that kind of response. Oh, BTW, Do you have room for an install from the 10 or 20 DVDs that would take? Not to mention the hundreds of licenses you would need to accept just to do the install. > > I definitely like that better, that the machine is > > at least tending towards just having what it needs installed. > > Yes, for 'production' scenarios where everything you do has > been planned and tested that makes sense. It doesn't make > sense for the machines you use to develop improvements for > those machines and need to try things no one has tested > yet - or if you work with scripts developed elsewhere that > are likely to invoke programs you haven't installed. > Why not? A bloated install may have things loaded you are not aware of, and using that kind of install for development, while it may be easy, is certain to bite you some time with a dependency you did not include because it was already there and you did not think about it on the way your package was written for dependencies. > > > machine with 'everything' installed, how are you supposed to > > > find out what is available and if you like it? > > > > Lots of packages can be installed and not really discoverable from the > > system menus. If a commandline utility goes in /usr/bin then unless you > > know the name you will likely never be aware of it (I guess apropos > > might help). So "install everything" so I can try things is really > > "bloat me" with many things I will never know I have. > > OK, how do you try out those things? If you are content with > the packages from years ago, why install a new system at all? > > > yum has some cool features. Try > > > > yum search java > > That was fun but the gazillion packages that scroll by turn > out to not include the one I'd actually want... > I think that applies to a lot of us with an "everything" install. Many packages I would not want are in that possible list; and many I do want are not in that list. And are you certain the one you do want would be in the install? Not all of mine are. > -- > Les Mikesell > lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx > >
