At 4:39 AM -0800 3/3/00, Sergio A. Kessler wrote:
>Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> el día Thu, 02 Mar 2000
>16:38:23 +0000, escribió:
>
>>> Why not just name the packages postgresql-server and postgresql-client
>[...]
>>That is possible. imho it is solving a "problem" with no clear benefit
>>in the end, so why bother? Just renaming packages doesn't, by name
>>alone, clarify which packages depend on others, doesn't clarify that
>>-server depends on -client, etc etc.
>
>sorry to be picky thomas, but if the name has almost no mean
>(as you imply) then why not call the package "pirindonga" ?
I live in NetBSD-land where the package system must be a bit different.
(It's based on FreeBSD ports.) You can do a pkg_info and get a nice, short
summary of the package contents including the dependencies. For example
TeX comes in about 5 packages and it wasn't at all hard for me to figure
out that I needed all but one of them. If you install the package it will
automatically install any packages it depends on. Dependencies can be
wild-carded so a package will accept a prerequisite package that is newer
than required and so on.
Do I take it that RedHat packages are not this nice? Or is there some
subtlety to this discussion I'm missing? Isn't there some convention for
how these things are handled already?
Signature failed Preliminary Design Review.
Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated.
h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
