Hisham Hashem Muhammad
hisham at inf.puc-rio.br
Mon Jan 31 14:01:59 GMT 2005
> But, unless I've misunderstood you, then you will be duplicating the
> deps for each package which requires them (the path I took with
> Wouldn't unpacking them into their own locations in /Programs (or
> somewhere else), separated by program name and major/minor versions be
> more efficient? Then there's just one copy of each major/minor version
> of each dependancy, regardless of how many apps use that particular
> version. Finally, you just have a wrapper to launch the app which sets
> the environment up appropriately based on what libs it should see.
Yes, that's more in line with how I'd see a "fat package" working. We
thought about something like this long ago, to package GNOME (a big
tar.bz2 which would explode into several directories under /Programs), but
that didn't go far (mainly because of the pain that it is to compile
GNOME). But looking at it now, I'm not so sure of the benefits. I think
most people would prefer the smaller downloads (and given the deps for
"fat" and "thin" packages are generated the same way, they would have the
same degree of 'correctness', wouldn't they?).
Thinking about it, a greater usability improvement would be to make the
dependencies files readable online, so that, for example, a dial-up user
could download everything he/she needs beforehand, instead of learning
about missing deps when installing.
More information about the gobolinux-users