Re: New package managment

[Jarda Benkovsky <pvt.benkovsk@pvtnet.cz>]

"Philipp Gühring" wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >If such a scheme were to become more widespread, it would do GREAT
> >things
> >for source-based packages.  People simply **HATE** following the paper
> >trail to get all the libraries that a complex modern game needs.

It uses to be stated in the download page. If it is not, feel free to 
email the author.

> But I have to question one thing:
> In my opinion, there are two kinds of people.
> The ones who don´t know enough about sourcecode.
>   They don´t have compilers and stuff like that installed (What do
>   I need a compiler for? I want to play a game, write some texts, ...)
>   Those people need binary packages, as statically linked as possible.

NOOOOooo!!!

Static linked binaries are evil! They eat disk space, RAM and bandwidth,
start longer and if the library is upgraded (e.g. for security reasons) 
you have to upgrade the binary also to use it. Static binaries are good
for 
things like root's shell, chrooted ls or the likes, but nothing more.
And BTW for binary only programs it violates GPL if you statically
link libc or another GPL'ed library.

The normal solution for dynamically linked binaries is to add package
dependency in the package. With debian it's not a problem and for
example
apt will prompt you to download all dependencies when installing
package.
IIRC rpm has file dependencies only (which is not so useful) but
maybe Redhat has already changed it?

					Edheldil