* Scott Francis [2009-01-01 00:00]:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> any examples of linux distributions in which segregation
> between "core OS" and "aftermarket packages" is not an
> ephemeral illusion?
slackware, maybe; I haven't used it in a while, but it _is_ the
m
On 2009-01-05, at 10:25, David Cantrell wrote:
You've never run into "inadequate" meaning that something is not good
enough?
Yah, but that meaning doesn't apply.
This was brought to you by hates-poor-use-of-langu...@whatever.
Or hates-sarcasm?
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 01:28:09PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
> On 2008-12-31, at 10:23, Joshua Rodman wrote:
> >The BSD people, whose package management system is pathetically
> >inadequate
> This is a use of "inadequate" that I haven't run into before.
You've never run into "inadequate" mean
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 04:08:38PM -0800, Joshua Rodman wrote:
> Funny that all the software I download from the internet thinks it's
> supposed to install by default into /usr/local.
>
> The various BSDs *might* have an argument if the ports installed into
> /usr/portlocal or /usr/local/ports som
On 2009-01-02, at 21:37, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Porting existing unix software to bundles and frameworks doesn't work
well, because they expect to spew config files and .po files and all
kinds of other stuff all over the filesystem, and aren't good at
locating their resources through relative paths
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter da Silva wrote:
> On 2009-01-02, at 14:13, Benjamin Reed wrote:
>> Also, Apple's built-in installer package management is only an
>> installer, not a package manager.
>
> I'm not talking about Apple's *installer*, I'm talking about Apple's
> bun
On 2009-01-02, at 14:13, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Also, Apple's built-in installer package management is only an
installer, not a package manager.
I'm not talking about Apple's *installer*, I'm talking about Apple's
bundles and frameworks. Bundles and frameworks don't overwrite
anything, becaus
On Jan 2, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Also, Apple's built-in installer package management is only an
installer, not a package manager. It has no intelligence as to what
happens after things get installed (other than writing a manifest of
what it did, completely oblivious to whether i
On Jan 2, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Also, Apple's built-in installer package management is only an
installer, not a package manager. It has no intelligence as to what
happens after things get installed (other than writing a manifest of
what it did, completely oblivious to whether i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Walt Mankowski wrote:
> Yeah, I think that's fink. I don't know what MacPorts is based on.
Using tcl and it's own home-grown stuff. At one point it had layers to
serialize to RPMs, dpkg, and/or apple installer .pkg's, but I don't know
what's functio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter da Silva wrote:
> Or is that Fink? The fact that there's two competing ports-based systems
> for OS X is a third layer of hate.
That's fink. And you can thank darwinports for making their own system
after fink was already stable, because Apple
1 - If you're convinced I'm just stupid and that it's wicked-easy to
get consistent behaviour, I challenge you to do so. You would make
*many* bsd Puppet users happy.
I gave up on it to. It drove me away from FreeBSD entirely for our
application environment. If I can't guarantee a cons
On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 10:27:27AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
> I believe that MacPorts uses debian packages as an intermediate step, so
> it incorporates the best hate from both sides of the aisle (yes, all
> software is hateful, Ports is software, therefore it's hateful, some of
> us just fi
I believe that MacPorts uses debian packages as an intermediate step,
so it incorporates the best hate from both sides of the aisle (yes,
all software is hateful, Ports is software, therefore it's hateful,
some of us just find it less hateful than the alternative of building
the whole syste
On 2008-12-31 at 18:49 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts. I have no
> idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be this bad
> and have such a rabid following.
> God forbid I wanted to fix any of this because i
On Dec 31, 2008, at 7:36 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Joshua Juran wrote:
On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts. I
have no
idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be
this bad
and have su
Joshua Juran wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
>> My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts. I
>> have no
>> idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be
>> this bad
>> and have such a rabid following.
>
> Wait... isn't
Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:21:50AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote:
>> sure, you _could_ do the OS as a collection of packages ... given that
>> no other UNIX-like OS historically has done that, you could also
>> adhere to the principle of least surprise and keep a clear segregat
On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts.
I have no
idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be
this bad
and have such a rabid following.
Wait... isn't this a Mac? I thought you could be
My only real experience with BSD-style packages is with MacPorts. I have no
idea what their relation really is, but BSD ports can't possibly be this bad
and have such a rabid following.
First off, it has to compile everything from fucking source. This is great
until you want to install something
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Scott Francis wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Joshua Rodman
> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> the ability to (for instance) tar up everything in /usr/local and know
> >> for a certainty you have backed up everything package-wise that was
> >> not part o
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Joshua Rodman
wrote:
[snip]
>> the ability to (for instance) tar up everything in /usr/local and know
>> for a certainty you have backed up everything package-wise that was
>> not part of the base OS install, allowing you to do a clean reinstall,
>> is useful.
>
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:21:50AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote:
>> sure, you _could_ do the OS as a collection of packages ... given that
>> no other UNIX-like OS historically has done that, you could also
>> adhere to the principle of least
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:21:50AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote:
> sure, you _could_ do the OS as a collection of packages ... given that
> no other UNIX-like OS historically has done that, you could also
> adhere to the principle of least surprise and keep a clear segregation
> between core OS (kern
On 2008-12-31, at 14:18, Joshua Rodman wrote:
Firstly, the base OS install should be made of packages, or you've
bascially made the entire base OS install one package which fails to
support the features of other packages.
Um... what? The whole idea of abstraction that led to the use of
operat
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:23:06AM -0800, Gerry Lawrence wrote:
> Disclaimer: I now (and recently) work in the largest BSD shop in the
> world. See if you can guess where that is.
Apple?
Luke Kanies wrote:
>
>
> I've always wondered about this; there must be some sort of
> "thinks-like-bsd" gene, afaict, because you either love it or hate it.
It's not genetics, it's experience.
> In my experience, it's nearly impossible to write software that
> manages *bsd packages;
That's inte
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:25:32AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Joshua Rodman
> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> > * filesystem hierarchies that changes with the phases of the moon -
> >> > this situation has improved somewhat in the past few years, but the
> >> > related
On Dec 31, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Gerry Lawrence wrote:
Top posting, as it's the new year.
I gotta agree with this. Freebsd's package manager and openbsd's
package management are both superior in
execution and design. Compared to any of the linux tools, including
RPM, apt-get, or Gentoo's, it's
On 2008-12-31, at 10:23, Joshua Rodman wrote:
The BSD people, whose package management system is pathetically
inadequate
This is a use of "inadequate" that I haven't run into before. Usually
that implies that it's worse, rather than better, than the system one
is advocating.
I'm still di
Top posting, as it's the new year.
I gotta agree with this. Freebsd's package manager and openbsd's
package management are both superior in
execution and design. Compared to any of the linux tools, including
RPM, apt-get, or Gentoo's, it's not even close.
Don't get me wrong, I love the littl
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Joshua Rodman
wrote:
[snip]
>> > * filesystem hierarchies that changes with the phases of the moon -
>> > this situation has improved somewhat in the past few years, but the
>> > related hate of package management systems that drop 3rd party
>> > packages into sys
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Smylers wrote:
[snip]
>> boy, I've been wanting to expound upon this for years (and have, to
>> anybody who'd sit still and listen);
>
> Your treating Peter's claim assertion of no comment being needed as an
> invitation to comment? Interesting!
perhaps not surp
>
> The BSD people, whose package management system is pathetically
> inadequate, seem to feel that we must use all use an unnecessary, and
> yet inadequate hack of file locations in order to provide a semblance of
> order.
>
> I, for one, will be glad when all of that generation are dead.
No yo
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 06:05:16PM +0100, Abigail wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 06:54:36AM -0500, Numien wrote:
> > As much as I disagree with turning software hate into
> > hates-software-subscriber hate, I have to agree this isn't exactly one
> > of my big complaints with Linux.
> >
> > It's n
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 06:54:36AM -0500, Numien wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Smylers wrote:
> | Scott Francis writes:
> |> * default setting of remote window title - if I wanted my terminal
> |> windows to say bash, CWD, hostname, tty and process, I'd bloody
> |> we
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 10:02:35AM +, Smylers wrote:
> Scott Francis writes:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Peter da Silva
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No further comment is needed. Bastards.
> >
> > boy, I've been wanting to expound upon this for years (and have, to
> > anybody who'd sit s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Smylers wrote:
| Scott Francis writes:
|> * default setting of remote window title - if I wanted my terminal
|> windows to say bash, CWD, hostname, tty and process, I'd bloody
|> well set it myself.
|
| The sytems I've seen doing this set it as part o
Scott Francis writes:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Peter da Silva
> wrote:
>
> > No further comment is needed. Bastards.
>
> boy, I've been wanting to expound upon this for years (and have, to
> anybody who'd sit still and listen);
Your treating Peter's claim assertion of no comment bein
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Peter da Silva wrote:
> No further comment is needed. Bastards.
boy, I've been wanting to expound upon this for years (and have, to
anybody who'd sit still and listen); in fact I was just beating
somebody over the head with it on Twitter earlier today (but that's
40 matches
Mail list logo
