Same name as a package supplied with the O/S??? That is unacceptable to me. I have enough problems with users who write EXECs with the same name as a command or a default abbreviation of a command. I do not need a vendor doing it, too.
Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of David Boyes > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:28 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: Philosophical question... > > On 2/3/09 11:19 AM, "Mike Walter" <mike.wal...@hewitt.com> wrote: > > > Is this the vendor's long-term answer, requiring old code > to support > > their app? > > Yes, or at least a modified code package that uses the same > name as a package supplied with the OS. They also "recommend" > bypassing dependency checking to force installation of this > package, which strikes me as flat out wrong. What's the point > of a software configuration management system if you bypass > it or allow vendors to bypass it? > > I feel that if I paid money for a package, I should be able > to expect it to install properly without bypassing the > configuration management system, and without it causing the > system management tooling to report problems. > > I'm glad that the general opinion appears to support my > assertion that the vendor needs to fix their software > packaging or installation if they must use a variant of a > system package. >
