Wrote Philippe Moutarlier on Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 08:50:43AM -0700:
> Chuck Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ah poor man.. RPM rocks and you are missing out on a lot of coolness.
> >
>
> Ah, yeah, so I am a very poor man too ...
>
> No, rpm doesn't rock that much. A really rocking thing should be able to detect
> that you DO HAVE the needed stuff even you didn't use rpm to install it !!!
Yeah that would be really rocking but we are talking very complex
systems here and writing RPM to try and handle that as well would make
it one buggy bit of code attempting to work out exactly what is needed
and what is installed.
> Isn't "configure" able to do so ?? Does it require some specific installation
> tools ??? Why not rpm ?? Will ultimately rpm be the Winbucks counterpart of the
> "setup.exe" mechanism by simply removing the --force or --nodeps that I am sure
> I am not the only one to need quite often ???
Configure configures source. RPM installs binaries. If you were to
include tests for every required package in every RPM package, package
maintainers would get bored real quick.
> What do you do when you have software like gnome which CAN use some libs but don't
> NEED them ?
Good question. But I don't understand it..
Chuck
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
