[NTLUG:Discuss] Debian

[Terry]

On 6/25/05, Terry <trryhend at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/25/05, Pat Regan <thehead at patshead.com> wrote:
> > Kevin Brannen wrote:
> > > Yes, this is probably the issue.  The most common one I've seen is when
> > > I install KDE and it seems to demand I install sane and xsane, but I
> > > don't have a scanner on the system, so that's just wasted space.  I've
> > > always felt that an easy solution to this is for the distro authors (or
> > > maybe it's the app authors) to create an optional "null" lib (or null
> > > app) that can be installed to satisfiy the dependency, but is otherwise
> > > empty.  I haven't seen that, but it sounds good on when I think about
> > > it. :-)
> >
> > I am certainly not informed enough to know what the truth is, so I will
> > have to go with the hypothetical :).
> >
> > I will assume that some package belonging to KDE has a Gimp-alike type
> > application.  If you have that application installed, it may "require"
> > sane to be installed.
> >
> > Now if we define "require" in such a way that if sane is not installed
> > this program will fail to function at all, then the packager did the
> > correct thing.  On the other hand, the scanning features may just fail
> > gracefully.  If that is the case it should not depend on sane, but it
> > should "suggest" or "recommend" sane be installed.
> >
> > I am assuming RPM packages can define similar dependencies.
> >
> > There is also the fact then generally many applications belonging to
> > Gnome and KDE tend to get lumped into a single package.  So, to invent
> > an example...
> >
> > Lets say that KDE graphics application is part of koffice and your
> > distribution lumps each piece of koffice into a single package and that
> > this program "depends" on sane.  You would have no way of installing
> > kword without installing sane because the graphics program depends on it.
> >
> > We are at the mercy of the people who are building out packages,
> > assuming of course we want the convenience of not rolling out own
> > install every time we upgrade :).  Most of the time they do a pretty
> > darn good job, and I thank them wholeheartedly for saving me so much
> > effort :).
> >
> > I don't know about you, but I don't mind putting up with a few extra
> > bits and pieces I don't need just so I don't have to deal with
> > "dependency hell" like I did 5 (or more?) years ago.  Although even if I
> > didn't have apt to do the work for me, the dependencies would be no
> > different, and I probably wouldn't be able to uninstall sane :).
> 
> Amen.
> Hard drives are bigger and cheaper now anyway and so  space is not a
> problem anymore.
> i.e. A full install for slackware is only 3g. Even those of us with
> the most hardware-challenged systems have at least a 6g HD.  And
> anyone that does a dual boot nowadays will just add a second drive for
> it.
> 
> If you do a full install, you only run into dependency issues when
> installing after-market applications and those would be rare cases.
> I realize that some of you are talking from the server install
> prospective, which would make this comment irrelevant for sure, and
> really, doing a full  install of a distro is only a work around, does
> not solve the issue, just avoids it. But just thought I'd throw this
> in here anyway, for whatever it's worth.

I might also add that Slackware just leaves dependency issues up to
the user.  If you install a package and then run one of it's
applications it will notify you if there's a dependency, at which time
you'll acquire and install it yourself, it tells you what you need and
you just install  it.
In other words, Slakcware's package manager does not prevent  you from
installing a package just because of a dependency issue.

-- 
<><