Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Sep 2011 00:19 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 489929
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.
RE[5]: Pity they don't do the same with their package manager
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 17th Sep 2011 15:00
in reply to "RE[4]: Pity they don't do the same with their package manager"
RE[5]: Pity they don't do the same with their package manager
by Valhalla on Sun 18th Sep 2011 15:23
in reply to "RE[4]: Pity they don't do the same with their package manager"
Having something which is clearly not even related (Basically similar to partition magic) as a dependency is a poor show.
Yes that particular packager had a 'poor show', not the package manager as you implied.
From my own experience as a long time user of Arch, I sometimes see packages which I personally find poorly packaged (which is easily spotted since all dependencies are listed when you are about to install a package).
But this is a debate between community and packager, and at the end of the day I can easily rebuild any package using abs (ports style) with the dependencies (and optimization settings) I prefer.
And if I'm too lazy for that then there's a huge chance someone else has done it and put it up as an AUR (Arch User Repository) package.




Member since:
2009-08-18
You are missing my point ...
Having something which is clearly not even related (Basically similar to partition magic) as a dependency is a poor show.
I am no expert at the GTK-QT engine or whatever it is ... but I common sense must tell you that including GParted is just wrong.
So you have this wonderful pacman tool, with people misusing it.