[NTLUG:Discuss] Debian

[Pat Regan]

Kevin Brannen wrote:
> 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.

Debian packages already have this value, I didn't come up with it myself
:).  They have "recommended" and "suggested" dependencies.  Debian
packages also have an "alternatives" and a "replaces" field.

> 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. :-)
>

I know this bit isn't actually in reply to me, but I figure I will throw
in my 2 cents :).

First, I agree that just because we have space we should not waste it.
If I had every possible package installed it would make backups more of
a headache.  Right now I can compress my entire operating system and
home directories on my home desktop machine, minus most media files,
onto a single DVD.

As far as the partitioning goes, I gave up on breaking things apart two
hard drive upgrades ago :).  That doesn't mean I don't break things up
on my servers, but it usually just turns into wasted space on my
desktop.  My var directory doesn't get full of crazy mail spools and
logs, so I am not worried about fragmentation :).

> 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.
> 

I doubt there is any package manager that will not let you force things.
 The problem comes in when you are using automated tools, like apt.  If
you force sane to be removed, you have left your currently installed
packages in an inconsistent state.

99.9% of users just don't care if they have sane installed, and those
same users would prefer to just let the automated tools do their job.
It saves a lot of time.

> 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.
> 

My parents both have Debian desktops I build them quite a few years ago.
 They know how to surf the web and write emails, and a few other minor
things.  They have no idea what is installed and they don't really care
to.  As long as they can find what they need, they are happy.

That is probably the goal of everyone who goes to Wal-Mart and buys a
300 dollar PC.  Take it home, works forever, they don't have to do
anything but what they expect.

Pat