On 24 Oct 2006, at 04:37, jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
While on the one hand, I think your idea of expecting all programs
to be
in packages of the same name is not a good requirement for a packaging
system, it of course points to the lack of an obvious way to say 'give
me the package that supplies program foo'
I think you are absolutely right, but it makes me wonder what the
point of
a packaging system is if its not to give me program 'foo'.
Ok, maybe giving me development library 'foo' works - but that should be
an edge case. It's not, I know.
Ideally, in the "Linux on every desktop"[1] utopian (dystopian?)
vision the
environment would be aimed at people who were wanting to get on with
using the computer for some task and ignoring the internals/general
crap - and if we presented the current idea of a package to these users
they'd not put up with the lunacy that we take in our stride -
admittedly
hating it as we stride onwards.
Greg
[1] or any other platform where OSS is consumed via a package manager.
