| ||||||||
|
A. Pagaltzis
pagaltzis@g...
Tue Apr 6 00:40:49 NZST 2004
* Oliver Jones <oliver@d...> [2004-04-05 04:13]: > > Having a distribution that has a "base", and several add on > > "repositories" that you could mix and match from would be > > very nice, although I'm not entirely sure how practical it > > would be given that you'd end up back in dependancy hell, > > except instead of having dependancy problems with individual > > packages, I've not got them between repositories (if I have > > say "base" + "Gnome" + "KDE", then if Gnome wants a newer > > version of some X library and KDE doesn't, then I'm hosed.) > > Not true. The dependancy graph should be like a tree. With > dependancies going down and sideways only. Ie, KDE can obly > depend on a package either A) supplied by a sibling repository > or B) supplied by the base repository. That's what he said. The twist he added is that different repositories may demand different versions of their dependendencies in a shared parent repository. And then, indeed, he's hosed. > It is all about your target audience and how niche your app is. > The more relevant the app is to a broad user base and the > better the user support a developer provides is the more likely > the app will get used. That can't be argued about. See also <http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/992/>. -- Regards, Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
More information about the wlug mailing list NOTICE: This is an archive of a public mailing list. The University of Waikato is not responsible for its contents.
|
||||||||