On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Peter Tribble<[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Darren J Moffat<[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> I think of two reasons why you would want to ignore dependencies: >> >> 1) time to install all the dependencies >> 2) space need to install all the dependencies >> Are there others ? > > 3. The dependency information is plain wrong > > 4. You want package A but not package B that it depends on. (Or packages > C, D, E, F... that get pulled in.) Am I managing the system, or is the system > managing me? > > 5. The dependency graph become so dense and knotted that it's impossible > to make any changes. And, yes, I've seen this several times. > > -- > -Peter Tribble > http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ >
Sometimes I wonder how conary makes everything such a fast, quick and easy experience under ForSight Linux. If you install - say - Firefox, it needs 20% the time to download and install it. And it doesn't hog CPU and Mem remotely as much, as IPS still does. I know, that this is a known problem. And Sun is working on improvements. But it is a pity that we could not take that 3rd party licensed pkg system that was readily usable 2 years ago and change it to support zones, BE's ... Ok, now we do have IPS. It had been created as a "trial", I still hear Sun's wording. In reality facts have been created, and probably it was planned that way. Well, one day it will be 100% mature. And we can already use it. Ok. But is or was it the most economically efficient decision? Whatever, a new system has been *developed*. This certainly is good news! -- Martin Bochnig _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
