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,
> 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
"If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
More information about the wlug
NOTICE: This is an archive of a public mailing list. The University of Waikato is not responsible for its contents.