good questions about dependencies
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick2 Jul 07, 2006 12:21 PM EDT |
I have also been greatly annoyed by the *buntu's insistence on making everything a necessary dependency. For example, I don't want dommed Bluetooth or other laptop-utils either, but I can't remove it because it takes the entire desktop with it. That is just plain stupid. What a great strategy- imitate the worst of Windows' crappy architecture. Not sure why Jacqui is so annoyed at sudo, *buntu's use of it seems clever and sensible to me. But he's right on the ridiculous dependencies. So what if foo percentage of users want an app? Duh, don't make it uninstallable for those who don't want it. Oh, and Tech Republic is an awful site. But this article raises good questions. |
| jimf Jul 07, 2006 12:35 PM EDT |
> Oh, and Tech Republic is an awful site. As in unusable... guess I won't be reading that one. |
| jdixon Jul 07, 2006 12:35 PM EDT |
> But this article raises good questions. A couple, yes. But in general I agree with one of the posters, if he dislikes Ubuntu so much, why does he use it? It sounds like he completely disagrees with the philosophical basis the Ubuntu folks are using to make their decisions. If so, Ubuntu isn't for him and he's better off simply using another distribution. The complaints of you and devnet, by comparison, are largely examples of things that should work right, but don't. For example, the developer was right, they have to include an html renderer for the help system. They chose to use Firefox, as it's the most popular browser availble for Linux (and they're using Gnome, which lets out Konqueror). He doesn't like Firefox, so he's upset. He'd be better off just using Debian and peforming a custom install where he gets to pick exactly what packages he wants. Then he'd be happy. Maybe. |
| grouch Jul 07, 2006 5:52 PM EDT |
Debian package dependencies have annoyed me only very, very rarely. If a package description says it "depends" on some other package, it's a safe bet that it actually does depend on that other package to function correctly, and you won't do yourself any favor by interfering with 'apt-get' installing it. Is Ubuntu in the process of breaking the best package management system out there? |
| sbergman27 Jul 08, 2006 12:20 AM EDT |
> It sounds like he completely disagrees with the philosophical basis the Ubuntu folks are using to make their decisions. Well, he mentions that he normally uses Linux From Scratch. (One can only presume that Gentoo isn't leet enough for him.) It's certainly true that you have more control over dependencies when you are compiling the software from scratch. If your "quibit" doesn't need to have "weeble" support, you don't compile it in. libweeble is no longer a dependency. Nor is libweeble's optional "snork" support. The source based distro's defaults can tend more toward leanness and less toward completeness, since the user can always decide to compile weeble in. A disadvantage to a binary distro is that some of your users might need weeble support. And some of those might need snork support, as well. So the distributor has to compile those in. Which means that all users who need quibit are stuck with libweeble and all its dependencies, plus snork and all its dependencies, and their dependencies all they way down the line. There are very valid reasons to make each package a requirement. But to a given user, the dependencies can look preposterous. Personally, I think that packing the functionality that they do onto one CD is doing pretty well. I agree that Ubuntu-desktop requiring bluetooth utils seems a bit wacky. But with disk space running 1/20th cent per megabyte, bluez-utils are taking up slightly over 1/27th of a penny's worth of my drive and I think I can live with that. |
| SFN Jul 10, 2006 5:52 AM EDT |
Quoting:For example, I don't want dommed Bluetooth or other laptop-utils either, but I can't remove it because it takes the entire desktop with it. I removed Bluetooth and a few other things and didn't lose my desktop. I'm not saying I was able to get it back after I lost it. I never lost it. Are you referring to the fact that it says it is going to remove "ubuntu-desktop" when you mark the Bluetooth stuff for removal? |
| sbergman27 Jul 10, 2006 2:01 PM EDT |
The package description: ---- The Ubuntu desktop system This package depends on all of the packages in the Ubuntu desktop system It is safe to remove this package if some of the desktop system packages are not desired. However, it is recommended that you keep it installed, because it is used to carry out certain upgrade transitions (such as adding new packages to the system). ---- I removed it and logged out and back in. I didn't notice any difference. Applications->Add/Remove is still there and comes up when I click it. I reinstalled it, since it's recommended and might contain the linux kernel or something. ;-) |
| tuxchick2 Jul 10, 2006 2:25 PM EDT |
sbergman, that's a metapackage, which is just a list of files, and you can safely remove it. On my Kubuntu system it does the same thing- bluetooth removal also removes kubuntu-desktop, but only the meta-package. However it's pretty darn scary to see that for the first time, because it sounds like it wants to remove your whole desktop. |
| sbergman27 Jul 10, 2006 2:50 PM EDT |
Carla, Yes, after I read your original post I verified that it looked like it really would take the desktop with it. And that is indeed what it looks like it would do. Metapackge? Is that so that you can say "apt-get install ubuntu-desktop" and get all the ubuntu-desktop packages at once? Kind of like installing yum "package groups"? -Steve |
| jimf Jul 10, 2006 2:55 PM EDT |
> Kind of like installing yum "package groups"? yes Steve |
| SFN Jul 11, 2006 4:12 AM EDT |
Quoting:However it's pretty darn scary to see that for the first time, because it sounds like it wants to remove your whole desktop. This has been something I've found perplexing as well. It causes no real problems but it does make it appear that it will. The killer is that and it's so easy to fix. If they would just name the metapackage something else, the problem would be solved. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!