On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Richard Hughes
<hughsient(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 20:02 +0200, Denis Washington wrote:
> > The distro model is nice (and arguably better than the LSB Package API)
> > if the packages you like to have are in the repos in sufficiently new
> > versions. But if you need to go past that (bleeding edge versions, not
> > widely spread apps), things get more difficult currently. Especially
> > propietary applications just cannot be distributed by the distros
> > directly.
>
> Right. These packages are compiled against system versions of libraries.
> Do we choose the F9 or rawhide version of xulrunner to link against?
> There's substantial API and ABI changes between distro versions for the
> majority of shared libraries.
>
> > I don't think this is a corner case at all. For one thing, propietary
> > applications might just don't play a role _because_ there is no really
> > good distribution method for them - the typical chicken-and-egg problem.
>
> Incorrect. Most closed-source applications I have to use are installed
> with an installer binary or script, which just smatters files on the
> hard drive in /opt. There's just no need to register these with the
> native system package manager as there are no updates repositories nor
> dependency tracking required.>
You you like an opinion on this, well, that it is mine. For example, look
ad Oracle Client 11g
application : it. as released with a tarball or so, have on it:
- a full stack of perl
- a full stack of shared library : glibc in primisis.
So what have to do un poor packager manager with this ? Disable the deps
and hope the best. Other, as MQ client, are released with RPM : with deps
disabled anyway. But not all
are equal : for example websphere. Sure it is tricky to package it but
almost don't force me to disable the deps: I DON'T WANT DISABLE THE DEPS.
IMHO, YMMV as usual