3 ms·

"a major complication is Debian's obnoxious segregation of headers into separate packages" What's so obnoxious about this? The -dev packages will depend on lib

by lamby 17y ago

"a major complication is Debian's obnoxious segregation of headers into separate packages" What's so obnoxious about this? The -dev packages will depend on libfooSONAME (and have far more stable names) so it's hardly more effort to keep them installed.

blasdel 17y ago
I don't know of any way to have apt always pull them in as dependencies, so I constantly find myself installing them manually. Debian's policy of splitting all features off into their own packages (or disabling them entirely for ideological reasons), and having duplicates of many packages (with mutually-exclusive dependents) constantly fucks with me. I can't ever depend on its dependency tracking to actually give me what I want. It's not a good sign when all the digg-bait walkthroughs always instruct you to paste in a huge list of packages.
- lamby 17y ago
  Aw, your argument was good until you referred to digg-bait walkthroughs. :] Ideological and/or legal disabling aside, these seem to be implicit drawbacks of using a binary distribution. If you link some app against libfoo, you will almost certainly need libfoo at runtime. Hm, no apt configuration needed, just install the -dev packages and you'll get the relevant .so too. This seems to be the correct case to optimise for, not the other way around.
  - blasdel 17y ago
    Except that other packages always depend on foo, and never foo-dev as a matter of policy, even where it makes no goddamn sense (setuptools doesn't depend on python-dev, rubygems doesn't depend on ruby-dev, etc.). I'd still have to either constantly be installing foo-dev packages despite already having foo, or succumb to the digg-bait technique of never letting apt think for itself.
    - tensor 17y ago
      Please give up on digg bait. It's an unhelpful useless addition that only serves to insult people. What does insulting primary digg users get you? It's now gotten you two negative replies, and derailed the conversation from its original purpose. Sure, I didn't have to reply, but I'd like to keep this community interesting and most importantly, constructive.
      - blasdel 17y ago
        Is there a better term for the standard adsense-fueled "Hack your Ubuntu iPod with Compiz Fusion!" articles that always contain big <pre> blocks of "sudo apt-get install ..." for the reader to mindlessly copy and paste?

by lamby 17y ago

blasdel 17y ago

I don't know of any way to have apt always pull them in as dependencies, so I constantly find myself installing them manually. Debian's policy of splitting all features off into their own packages (or disabling them entirely for ideological reasons), and having duplicates of many packages (with mutually-exclusive dependents) constantly fucks with me. I can't ever depend on its dependency tracking to actually give me what I want. It's not a good sign when all the digg-bait walkthroughs always instruct you to paste in a huge list of packages.

lamby 17y ago
Aw, your argument was good until you referred to digg-bait walkthroughs. :] Ideological and/or legal disabling aside, these seem to be implicit drawbacks of using a binary distribution. If you link some app against libfoo, you will almost certainly need libfoo at runtime. Hm, no apt configuration needed, just install the -dev packages and you'll get the relevant .so too. This seems to be the correct case to optimise for, not the other way around.
- blasdel 17y ago
  Except that other packages always depend on foo, and never foo-dev as a matter of policy, even where it makes no goddamn sense (setuptools doesn't depend on python-dev, rubygems doesn't depend on ruby-dev, etc.). I'd still have to either constantly be installing foo-dev packages despite already having foo, or succumb to the digg-bait technique of never letting apt think for itself.
  - tensor 17y ago
    Please give up on digg bait. It's an unhelpful useless addition that only serves to insult people. What does insulting primary digg users get you? It's now gotten you two negative replies, and derailed the conversation from its original purpose. Sure, I didn't have to reply, but I'd like to keep this community interesting and most importantly, constructive.
    - blasdel 17y ago
      Is there a better term for the standard adsense-fueled "Hack your Ubuntu iPod with Compiz Fusion!" articles that always contain big <pre> blocks of "sudo apt-get install ..." for the reader to mindlessly copy and paste?