> The justification for dependencies in software packages is that > they can be shared, saving RAM and disk space. But disks and > RAM is growing very large, while not much is actually shared. > Besides many instances of the same program sharing the runtime > code, do programs really need to share anything, beyond agreeing > on standard interfaces for the display manager and the operating > system?
If you didn't use dependencies, how would you track security patches in your libraries? We have a perfect natural laboratory to see how this would play out: Windows. In the Windows world, the idea of dependencies is largely foreign. For that reason, there's probably 20 copies of things like zlib and openssl installed the typical Windows desktop box. Many of those are old versions that never get back-patched for security fixes until someone points out, one by one, that each proprietary software package that bundled a vulnerable version needs to be updated. It is a nightmare. Your software distribution does you a grand service by managing this for you. Use a distro that does it right, buy into it and use their framework, and many of the headaches you describe become minor. tim _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
