On 10/6/02 5:11 PM, "Michael Loose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. Why do you assume that? As a satisfied fink user, I always saw it as a means of getting my favorite *nix open-source apps on OS X. I don't believe fink (or any other *nix packaging system) is appropriate for people who are uncomfortable with the basics of *nix. > 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..... Fink itself ruins nothing if you follow the instructions to the letter. The whole point of the /sw directory is to achieve that. Some packages may be buggy and do bad things, but what would you expect when you are dealing many packages with different origins and of widely varying quality? Incidentally, commercial software installers are often much more destructive. If you run Disk First Aid from your OS X CD and choose to verify permissions, you'll find many files with incorrect permissions as a result of bad installers. These can cause security problems, mysterious software failures, and worse. > It simply takes more time to use Fink than it takes to do it properly > yourself. As a satisfied user with no involvement in fink development, I very much doubt. I used to manage my own Linux machines, and package management was not a walk in the park because of constant conflicts. -- F ------------------------------------------------------- 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
