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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Jouni.Lohikoski@iki.fi
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:55:21PM -0500, [hidden email] wrote:
Content-Description: GnomeMeeting-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 35
> From: Allan <[hidden email]>
> 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
[hidden email]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

John Musbach
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, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:55:21PM -0500, [hidden email] wrote:
> Content-Description: GnomeMeeting-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 35
> > From: Allan <[hidden email]>
> > 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
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
>
_______________________________________________
GnomeMeeting-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Damien Sandras
Feel free to provide it :-)


Le lundi 19 décembre 2005 à 10:18 -0800, Hex Star a écrit :

> 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, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:55:21PM -0500, [hidden email] wrote:
> > Content-Description: GnomeMeeting-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 35
> > > From: Allan <[hidden email]>
> > > 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
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
> >
> _______________________________________________
> GnomeMeeting-list mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
--
 _      Damien Sandras
(o-    
//\     GnomeMeeting: http://www.gnomemeeting.org/
v_/_    FOSDEM 2006 : http://www.fosdem.org
        SIP Phone   : sip:[hidden email]
                      sip:[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
GnomeMeeting-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

John Musbach
Lol...was just a suggestion, should of said I'm no shell
scripter....seems like it would be a good idea though IMO with all
these dependencies people are complaining about...

On 12/19/05, Damien Sandras <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Feel free to provide it :-)
>
>
> Le lundi 19 décembre 2005 à 10:18 -0800, Hex Star a écrit :
> > 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, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:55:21PM -0500, [hidden email] wrote:
> > > Content-Description: GnomeMeeting-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 35
> > > > From: Allan <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GnomeMeeting-list mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
> --
>  _      Damien Sandras
> (o-
> //\     GnomeMeeting: http://www.gnomemeeting.org/
> v_/_    FOSDEM 2006 : http://www.fosdem.org
>         SIP Phone   : sip:[hidden email]
>                       sip:[hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> GnomeMeeting-list mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
>
_______________________________________________
GnomeMeeting-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Allan-5-2
In reply to this post by Jouni.Lohikoski@iki.fi
On Monday 19 December 2005 13:09, [hidden email] wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:55:21PM -0500,
> [hidden email] wrote: Content-Description:
> GnomeMeeting-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 35
>
> > From: Allan <[hidden email]>
> > 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.
>
Good point.  I didn't appreciate the load that could be placed on ram.
_______________________________________________
GnomeMeeting-list mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list