To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Please stop it! You repeat the same reasoning over and over, completely disregarding the facts (that I have pointed out at least twice now). Stop trolling - because that's what you are doing when you spread misinformation...
For the last time:
PC-BSD's PBIs do use shared libraries. I know, because I have built some in the past (I maintained Scribus and Tellico for a while). When someone builds a PBI, there is a set of libraries that you can expect to be present on ALL PC-BSD installs: xorg and supporting libraries, qt and kdelibs comes to mind. All software that depends on those libs (from amarok through scribus to koffice) will use those libs. There are no kdelibs packaged separately in all PBIs that are built on QT/KDE technology.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
There are only a few cases when extra libraries needs to be included in the PBIs - and the only drawback they have is increased memory usage (due to loading libraries twice), but only if you happen to be running some of these progs in parallel. How much RAM we are talking here? 500K? 2Mb? LOL.
So please stop repeating the same FUD over and over, and folks, please stop modding him up.
"""
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
...
So please stop repeating the same FUD over and over, and folks, please stop modding him up.
"""
As I said in a couple of previous posts, I'm content to just wait to see how successful PBI is, relative to other packaging strategies. I'm guessing "not very". But hey, I could be wrong.
Judging from the bold and the BOLDED CAPS you seem kind of defensive.
Time will tell. No point in invoking the "FUD" acronym and telling people to stop voting in ways that you don't like.
One thing that we have learned in the Linux community is that you can't be rude and expect to be a hit with new users. Judging from your comments, this seems a lesson that BSD has yet to learn.
Chill and enjoy! ;-)
Edited 2006-10-31 22:28
There are only a few cases when extra libraries needs to be included in the PBIs - and the only drawback they have is increased memory usage (due to loading libraries twice), but only if you happen to be running some of these progs in parallel. How much RAM we are talking here? 500K? 2Mb? LOL.
NO!
I'm the creator of LAZARUS PBI. See the forums for more info.
Long story short, if you need a PROGRAM which MAKES OTHER PROGRAMS and they ALL NEED THE LIB you're in a big bad problem.
You can either manualy put your required libraries to global lib directory, risking package/port corruption, or not, making your software work, but not it's products.
Eg: a compiler with IDE, see Lazarus PBI discussion in PCBSD forum. I gave up on PCBSD because of this and KDE (I prefer gnome)
So PRETTY PLEASE, stop spreading sweet ignorance





Member since:
2005-07-24
"""Well, the expedient way might be the only way if your resources are limited."""
Precisely. One day, the PC-BSD devs will come up with their own packaging system that takes advantage of shared objects, or adapt an existing one, and it will be heralded as a huge step forward.
I think that the best way to resolve this disagreement is to simply wait until the problems become so apparent that they cannot be denied anymore. The "No Shared Libraries" crowd will be much more willing to admit there was a problem after they have a solution in hand.