[NTLUG:Discuss] Debian

[Terry]

On 6/25/05, Kevin Brannen <kbrannen at pwhome.com> wrote:
> Terry wrote:
> 
> >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.
> >>>
> >>>
> 
> I think you've put your finger on the problem here, though you haven't
> stated it directly. :-)  What we need is tri-value logic, not binary
> values.  Presently, we have "requires" or "blank" (for no need).  I'm
> thinking we need a 3rd value for "recommend" or "optional".  If we were
> on a Gentoo system, we could add in flags to leave some of the extra
> functionality out, but that's not possible with pre-compiled packages.
> 
> >>>...
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>
> 
> I'll respectfully disagree.  For many people, I'd say you're correct.
> However, some of us partition our system to break /usr or /opt or /var
> or whatever off into separate partitions.  Then when we upgrade several
> times, and each upgrade *insists" upon installing more stuff we don't
> need/want but it must have to satisfy dependencies, then the partition
> fills and we have to deal with that problem which can be quite painful.
> This has happened to me, in that I started off giving /usr an extra 1G,
> then 3 upgrades later I had less than 100M free (and note, I put
> /usr/local in it's own partition just to avoid me doing this to myself,
> so this was growth from the distro).  Probably 1 more upgrade and I
> would have been screwed; fortunately I got a new & bigger HD which
> forced it's own repartitioning. :-)

[It appears to me that]: When it came time to add a new HD, you
neglected to do so.  (It's kind of like blaming McDonalds for your
clothes not fitting any more.)

> >>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.
> >
> >
> 
> Fortunately, YaST in Suse is the same way.  I can *force* it to install
> or removed even if it would break dependencies just because I know
> better (or want to); and I have done that.  Part of my success is that I
> understand Linux and how it's put together and that I can just not
> install [x]sane because I know it will never be called; and part of it
> is luck.  BUT WHY SHOULD IT BE THAT HARD?  That is my question and
> something I think the Linux community as a whole needs to address to get
> better.
> 
> And please note, I'm not after world domination for Linux.  I just want
> it to get big enough on the desktop that it must be taken seriously.
> 
> Kevin

Me too.
-- 
<><