3 ms·
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 usi
by 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 agoExcept 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 agoPlease 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 agoIs 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?