Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 00:30 UTC
A next-generation package manager called Nix provides a simple distribution-independent method for deploying a binary or source package on different flavours of Linux, including Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, Fedora, and Red Hat. Even better, Nix does not interfere with existing package managers. Unlike existing package managers, Nix allows different versions of software to live side by side, and permits sane rollbacks of software upgrades.
Thread beginning with comment 341250
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-24
In all fairness, there were teams of Linux zealots telling us that there was no such thing as dependency hell back in 1998.
Wow. 1998. That takes me back a ways. I had to spend some time reorienting myself. Back in 1998, I would have been using RedHat 5.1 and 5.2. Up2date, Red Hat's first dependency manager was, I believe, introduced in fall of 1999 in Red Hat Linux 6.1. Oddly, I don't have a specific recollection of being bothered by dependencies back then. Perhaps because the dependency tree back then was less complex. And possibly because I was focusing upon the one really major dependency issue that I *know* we had back then: The switch from libc5, maintained by the Linux kernel devs, to glibc from the FSF.
Also, since I was coming from SCO OpenServer 5, rpm alone seemed like a godsend even without dependency management.
I think I can say, however, that by 6.1, 6.2 or 7.0 at the latest, dependency problems in RH were mostly a thing of the past. I think maybe Mandrake had the problem resolved a little earlier with urpmi. I distinctly remember that at least through the early 2000s, a significant portion of Debian users seemed to have no idea that other distros had package management. It was like some of them lived in some weird parallel universe in which only Debian had such a thing. I still occasionally run into that attitude in a slightly modified form. Now they admit that other distros have it, but claim that it only actually *works* in Debian. As a user of both apt and yum, I can categorically state that such views have little basis in fact, and are most likely a vestigial meme still being passed around in certain communities. Repos in the Debian world are quite good. But so are repos in the Red Hat/Fedora world. Apt definitely still has the edge over yum on speed, which I appreciate when I am working with deb based distros.
With the diverse set of machines that I administer in my work, I cannot imagine dependency hell being a real problem without my noticing it.
So I guess I would have to say that if there ever was a dependency hell in any sort of practical sense, it was long ago and far away.
Edited 2008-12-23 18:33 UTC
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-09-28
In all fairness, there were teams of Linux zealots telling us that there was no such thing as dependency hell back in 1998. Back then, if you criticised the situation, you were labelled an idiot for doing it wrong. It's understandable that it's difficult to assure people that package managers have matured and are now extremely reliable.