Ok, how bout SuSE 9.0?

[Bill Vermillion]

On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 11:10:15AM -0400, Fairlight thus spoke:
> The honourable and venerable Bill Vermillion spoke thus:
> > Must have been someone else who mentioned my name :-)

> Dunno.  Ears been burning?
> 
> > I keep hearing/reading of problems with libraries mis-matching, and
> > having to DL something else, before you can install what you want.
> > I've had that on the few Linux boxen I've used.

> That's not the fault of RPM, that's the fault of package
> dependancies in general. Take anything that relies on OpenSSL
> for instance, and you work up the chain of dependancies. Yes,
> you have to satisfy the RPM's dependancy list, but it has one
> to prevent you from doing something stupid like putting in a
> library that won't have a symbol that something needs.

Then why not change those installs to work like a typical pkg_inst
with binaries, so that it will automatically find the correct
dependancies and install them.  At least the ones I ran across in
Linux [and I'm no Linux expert] required me to go fetch what was
needed.  The computers are smart and fast enough that they should
do some of this work :-)

> But you'd have to satisfy that dependancy with raw source
> packages as well.

Hate to tout ports [or portage] but the system knows how to handle
that oo.  I'm spoiled.  I'm lazy.   

....

> What -does- get me about RH in specific is if you want to replace,
> say...perl.  They make that next to impossible to do. 

That WAS a problem in FreeBSD.  And that was because so many of
the install scripts were Perl and Perl version dependant.  So
all the install scripts were re-written to use on shell of c
programs.  

The additional reason was that Perl has grown so large they didn't
want to have that as part of the Base OS that they keep slim so
that it can be used in standalone systems that don't need all the
fluff.  Now you can install the one distributed or the newer
version [ which goes into /usr/local ] and a 'use-perl' [I think I
have that right, lets you set the version you wish to use at that
time.

...

> Some things are just picky, period. I find it hard to believe
> nothing in FBSD cares about what particular version of OpenSSL
> is around. That has to be one of the most notoriously maleable
> libraries of the last few years.

It's never bene a problem.  It ships with the base OS and in the
base sources.   And when you change that has a newer version
dependancy and you have older programs using the older version,
quite often all you have to do is run the pkgdb with the -F option
to use the newer version.   Using the system tools [ not brute
force rm /path/to/package/* ] to remove packages ensures you don't
remove something that another package depends upon.

I see that most of the openssl files are 13 months old on this
machine, with 6 that were added by the upgrade to 4.10 PRERELEASE.

> > We're not talking kernels here. And anyone who has used Unix
> > for any length of time always has at least ONE good kernel
> > that is placed where a system upgrade or relink [in SCO
> > parlance] will leave the good versions alone. Anyone who
> > hasn't learned that by now needs to have his root access
> > privledges removed :-)

> Yes, well... YOU know that. I know that. Let's just say I know
> some people that -do- need their root privileges removed.

But look at the business we'd lose if they did that :-)

> > Ah - what the heck. It's called Gentoo. It seems to be
> > getting more and more noise as it goes along, and a lot of
> > that is because of 'portage'.

> Ok. I've heard of it before, but not regarding portage. Another
> popular one seems to be knoppix, and I have no idea why. Can't
> remember.

Knoppix is recommended almost as a universal recovery tool by some.
It's a fully functioning and running bootable from CD Linux system.

It probably wouldn't hurt to snag a current version, as depending
on what the EU does in regards to software patenets, it may become
unavailable.

Current home page there shows it has a 2.4.6 and a 2.6.5 both
on the current disk and both as options.  The disk is stored with
everything compressed so there is about 2GB worth of data on it.


> > Why should I insert BSD into a Linux discussion. And when
> > you say 'versioning used by vendors' you are talking about
> > the way an OS vendor will diddle a version as opposed to an
> > application vendor, correct?

> Because BSD's ports system avoids the problem of mis-versioning
> altogether.

> And yes, I'm talking about OS vendors doing something
> Aridiculous like pache 1.3.24-27 really being about equivalent
> Ato the real McCoy's 1.3.27.

Find a better vendor :-)  Or send nasty email - or both.

> I wish they -would- use the application vendor's version
> numbers, so you could more easily tell what exactly is present
> and problematic without a paper chase.

Agree 1000%

>
> > > I don't care -how- they do it. Version things truthfully
> > > and I'll be happy. :)

> > We'll see ;=)

> IF it would ever happen we would. :) But you know me...I'm
> never completely happy. Such is my lot. Well, I'm completely
> happy for small intervals--until I find something to be
> displeased with. *grin*

Always looking for new windmills to joust.  You'll find no
shortage.   Sometimes there are just windmills.

Bill
-- 
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com