Re: [GnomeMeeting-list] Re: Why all the #%$ *(*& dependencies Was: GnomeMeeting-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 35

[Hex Star <hexstar gmail com>]

Or perhaps they could consider having you download a install.sh file,
and when run it would first check to see if you meet the dependencies
and if not it would download and install the dependencies for you from
your distros download location and then it would download and install
the latest version of GnomeMeeting...

On 12/19/05, Jouni Lohikoski iki fi <jlohikos cc hut fi> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:55:21PM -0500, gnomemeeting-list-request gnome org wrote:
> Content-Description: GnomeMeeting-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 35
> > From: Allan <amau sympatico ca>
> > Subject: [GnomeMeeting-list] Why all the #%$ *(*& dependencies
> > I can understand why it was useful at one time to have all these libraries.
> > Storage was expensive, etc.  But now, storage is dirt cheap.  So can someone
> > give me a rational explanation as to why developers simply don't include
> > everything needed in the packages they produce?  For example, if I recall
> > correctly, Opera comes in two flavours - statically linked and dynamically
> > linked.  The statically linked package is somewhat larger, but so what?
>
> In a multitasking environment it makes sense to have as much code as
> possible to be shared between other applications. Just think if every
> GNOME program would be statically linked and you would be (not even
> knowinig) a heavy GNOME user. You would easily need gigabytes of RAM memory
> just in a normal office or home computer, or otherwise the system would swap
> intolerably much often.
>
> But I do agree the dynamic linking strategies should somehow be done
> somehow alot easier. It is not a big problem to use some good
> distribution and install packages and dependencies from that same
> distribution, but compiling some CVS code with all the dependencies is
> a huge task sometimes. One of the best examples is to compile MPlayer
> with all its features from the CVS version.
>
> Ofcourse developers could make it make more sense, if for example they
> would use RPM source packages to distribute also developer and experimental
> versions and would always also keep the source library dependencies
> updated. But very very seldom I see correct use of "BuildRequires:"
> fields in any RPM spec file. In a long run I think it would save even
> time when done routinely. But it would require that also library and
> other upstream developers would be as conscientious. Also some
> Freedesktop Project or Linux Standard Base should "enforce" more
> strictly how packages should be named between different distributions.
>
> < http://www.fedora.us/docs/rpm-packaging-guidelines.html#buildrequires >
>
> // jouni
>
> _______________________________________________
> GnomeMeeting-list mailing list
> GnomeMeeting-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
>