Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Mar 2007 23:07 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 218958
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kwag: I've been using Foresight for about three months, and it's a delight, without dependency hell on package management. rPath feels "Correctly Built", instead of "Plastered Together", like most other Linux distributions.
I'm not saying that Conary is bad, but can we please get over the "dependency hell" chimera? There is no such thing like dependency hell, at least not any more. Every major package management system (i.e. apt/dpkg and rpm) deals with dependencies in a mature and reliable way.
Nobody can help you if you want to compile your own programs and you don't read the requirement list beforehand.






Member since:
2006-08-31
Quote from article:
"Although almost everyone who encounters Conary is enthusiastic about it, no major distributions are apt to swap out their existing package systems in order to adopt it."
The reviewer should read more before saying this.
Conary is way ahead of yum, apt, or rpm.
That's why AsteriskNOW (a *major distribution* from Digium) has based it's distribution on rPath, and others like "SugarCRM", "OpenFiler", etc., have followed
I've been using Foresight for about three months, and it's a delight, without dependency hell on package management. rPath feels "Correctly Built", instead of "Plastered Together", like most other Linux distributions.