| |||||||||||||
Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld)Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld)Posted Aug 29, 2008 21:11 UTC (Fri) by Sutoka (guest, #43890)In reply to: Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld) by MattPerry Parent article: Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld)
>If a distro is LSB compliant and the package is built
>to work on LSB compliant system, then there won't be a problem.
So now no software can have dependencies on software not included in the LSB? Or are all non-LSB dependencies going to have to be statically compiled in or shipped with the package in some way? Neither of those are a very nice solution... If you don't do either, you just push the problem up slightly higher.
>Just because they do fit your needs doesn't mean they fit
Quite few people complain about the current system, and lots of people tout the current system as being one of Linux's big advantages. This is while lots of people complain about how it works on Windows, with most software not having any auto update mechanism, and the developers that do each have their own implementation (Windows Update vs Adobe Updater vs Steam vs Firefox's vs etc).
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||