After reading your whole e-mail, I'm still not clear on what your 
actual problem with Fink is...

On Sunday, October 6, 2002, at 05:11 PM, Michael Loose wrote:

> As there is no possibility to sent feedback directly to someone who 
> feels responsible
> for the latest distribution i use this way to let out these things 
> (adressed to whom ever it may concern).

This is a reasonable place for feedback on Fink as a whole.  Fink is 
not just one person.

> After having read all that stuff i assume the thought of fink was to 
> make life easier for people who are not that common w. UNIX and the 
> commandline - which is quite a nice idea.
>
> Unfortunately there is a one tiny little problem that turns the whole 
> fink - thing into a dangling carrot :
>  In life you basically have to choose between using something that is 
> foolproof
> (and pay the price or live with limitations) or do it yourself 
> properly.
> Simple as that.

So what didn't work?  The maintainers wouldn't be doing this if they 
didn't think they were making it easier to install things than doing it 
by hand.  What is "properly" in your mind, that Fink is not doing?

> Fink is not foolproof.
> It takes quite a lot of time to figure out what is ruined by fink  and 
> why fink chooses the so- and -so version of thi-and-that which is not 
> compatible whith dadada.....

As to what is "ruined", I'm not sure what to say.  If the maintainer 
wasn't able to build and install something, they wouldn't have put it 
in the Fink tree in the first place, so if you installed something that 
didn't work, you'll have to be more specific.

As to the issue of "why does Fink choose so-and-so", Fink exists so you 
don't have to know that information.  =)

If you want to know the deep details of Fink dependencies, then yes, 
you need to know enough about Fink to trace that down, or ask someone 
who does know.  99.9% of the people using Fink don't care.  I don't 
think that's a bug, that's a feature.

> It simply takes more time to use Fink than it takes to do it properly 
> yourself.

Again, what is "improper" about what Fink does?

> And... there is especially no use for the average MAC -User and 
> his/hers Terminal-Paranoia...

 From what I can tell, your beef is that you can't tweak the way things 
build?  It's difficult to say from what you've written.  In that 
context, the average mac user will install a few packages from the 
bindist and never worry about the kinds of things you seem to be 
worried about.  They could give a crap whether something builds against 
db 3.1 or db4 or whatever (and they would never be interested in 
tweaking the build options anyways) -- they just want it to work, and 
barring bugs, it does.



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Fink-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users

Reply via email to