[plug] re opening linuxconf

[Beau Kuiper]

On Sun, 6 May 2001, The Thought Assassin wrote:

> 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?
>

Not sure, it was a while ago, but it also was on a slow pentium with
limited ram.

> > 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.

Whats tedious in:

./configure --help *get useful options*
./configure *useful options*
make
run the program *if I want to test it before I install*
make install *if I want to permanately install it*

it may be more tedious than the single apt get, but it isn't rocket
science. Uninstalling is more difficult, but I don't uninstall much.

>
> In short, package management offers you a level of reliability you can
> only approach otherwise, regardless of how much time you spend manually.
>
True, but I will survive.

> > 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".
>
It doesn't, I was just illistrating that uninstall doesn't have to be hard
for very large packages. Upgrading KDE to 2.1.1 was a no-brainer for me.

> > 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.
>

Most programs don't need anything special for configuration. Most programs
don't have dozens of dependacies either.

> > 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. ;)
>

I actually don't spend much time compiling software either to be honest.
And get off your high horse, since I have a job too.

> > > > 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.

I program too :-) And I never said that I couldn't be convinced to use or
like package systems. It just doesn't feel like anything avaliable at the
moment is really going to be much use to me.

>
> 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.

But why bother with a packaging system at all. The main advantages to
packaging systems are:

1) Dependancies are managed for you. But somethings this can burn you too.
   Start installing your own libraries and packages outside this system,
   and you are left in a situation where a package may require dependacies
   which you installed manually, but the packaging system knows nothing
   about.
2) Every program on the system is cataloged and packages can be quickly
   removed and installed. Start installing programs manually and you lose
   this ability.
3) Upgrading packages. Even though the packaging system can upgrade your
   package, it cannot garrentee that every dependant package will continue
   to work. Older package systems can't even upgrade many packages because
   other programs are dependant on that specific version.
4) Working with multiple systems. Packaging systems allow the simple
   deployment of packages to lots of systems. Installing stuff manually
   doesn't give you this benfiet

The main advantages to not bothering with packaging systems are.

1) You can compile and install anything, even if no-one bothered to make a
   package for it. Using the packaging system to do this is a pain because
   you have to create the package yourself, and determine where it fits,
   what dependancies it has, ect. This has the disadvantage of allowing
   you to trash your system if you are not careful. I am also aware Debian
   has packages for almost anything.
2) You can upgrade libraries easily. You can also break lots of programs
   easily too, if you are not careful.
3) You can change the compile configuration easily. You can easily do
   funky things like install samba twice on the same machine into
   different subtrees (which requires changes in compile time options,
   for log files ect.)

I know most people can get away with using packaging systems, and benefit
greatly from their abilities, I just don't like to use them. Maybe they
will become intellegent enough not to XXXX me off one day.

Beau Kuiper
kuiperba at cs.curtin.edu.au