[plug] re opening linuxconf

[The Thought Assassin]

On Sun, 6 May 2001, Beau Kuiper wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2001, The Thought Assassin wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 May 2001, Beau Kuiper wrote:
> > > 1) I keep breaking the system. I killed the debian apt system by using
> > > Cntl-c to stop a package install.
> > Eeeg. That's not a good idea, but it wouldn't typically leave the system
> > in an unrecoverable state? Might take some understanding of the packaging
> > system to make it consistent again, though. :(
> Or lots of time, like what apt wanted to rebuild.

The only thing I can think of that would take a lot of time to rebuild
would be an available packages list over a modem. Is that what it was?

> apt should notice when I press control-c, and make sure things are
> consitent before exiting.

Yes, it ought. Do any of the Debian list-hounds here know of proposals in
this direction, or should we put it forward?

> > > 2) I find that I wan't to compile packages with different settings than
> > > the package has.
> > Which package-management system stops you from doing that?
> Any package system that insists on being too automatic, and installing
> binaries by default.

Installing binaries doesn't stop you installing from source. I'm sure
you've installed binaries yourself and still manage to install stuff from
source afterwards.

> Using no package system isn't hard at all actually.

It's not hard, just tedious, but I don't think many people would use a
packaging system just for ease-of-use. I use it because of the reliability
you expect from something tested by thousands of people beforehand,
because a careless slip can't do any damage, because versioning conflicts
never translate into unpredictable programs, and because I can uninstall
without hangovers or breaking other software.

In short, package management offers you a level of reliability you can
only approach otherwise, regardless of how much time you spend manually.

> You don't actually need to install most programs to test them out. Simply
> compile them and if you like it, run make install. Huge programs, like KDE
> get placed in /opt/<really big package name>

I don't understand what stops you from doing that on a package-managed
system. Perhaps you couldn't find the gcc package? It's in "devel".

> Also, package systems make it harder to install multiple versions of a
> program, or muliple copies of the same program with different compile
> configurations.

How can it possibly make it harder? In some instances, it will even make
it easier, because the source package will give you the basis of a
configuration that will work on your system - from which you can deviate.

> Just because you don't need to do any of this stuff,
> doesn't mean I don't do it day in and day out.

Much as I'd like to do that day in day out, I have a job and a wife...
I guess if you only use your machine for compiling software, it doesn't
really matter how you run it. ;)

> > > In short, I am a control freak, at least on my computers
> > So why are you running all these programs that other people wrote? ;)
> For the same reason I didn't design and manufacture the components in my
> computer.

Presumably you are not an electronic engineer. I guess one should infer
that you are not a programmer, but that you are a software systems
architect/integrator. If so, I fear you are in danger of being
out-competed by someone who _can_ coexist with and reap the benefits of
a package management system.

Packaging systems, rarely, if ever make anything harder to do by hand. If
the system is designed properly, you can recompile packages from source
or install your own software from tarballs right over the top, and
experience no conflict from the underlying system at all. It probably
requires a minimal understanding of both the package manager and the
software you are installing, but I'm sure you have that.

-Greg Mildenhall