Grant Edwards wrote:
Does windows even _have_ a library dependancy system that lets
an application specify which versions of which libraries it
requires?
Well you could argue that easy_install does it a bit during install.
Then there is 'Windows Side By Side' (winsxs) system which sorta does i
On 2009-12-08, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
> Lie Ryan wrote:
>
>>
>> The only thing that package managers couldn't provide is for the
>> extremist bleeding edge; those that want the latest and the greatest in
>> the first few seconds the developers releases them. The majority of
>> users don't fa
Lie Ryan wrote:
The only thing that package managers couldn't provide is for the
extremist bleeding edge; those that want the latest and the greatest in
the first few seconds the developers releases them. The majority of
users don't fall into that category, most users are willing to wait a
On 2009-12-08, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
> - In the ideal world, a upgrade of a dependency won't break
> your program, in reality users fear upgrading dependencies
> because they don't know for sure it won't result in a dll
> hell type of problem.
In my experience with binary-based distros
On 12/9/2009 12:02 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
I disagree, what you should have is an Operating System with a package
management system that addresses those issues. The package management must
update your software and your dependencies, and keep
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
>
> I disagree, what you should have is an Operating System with a package
> management system that addresses those issues. The package management must
> update your software and your dependencies, and keep track of
> incompatibilities between you a
Lie Ryan wrote:
Yes from an argumentative perspective you are right.
But given the choice of being right and alienate the fast majority of my
potential user base, I rather be wrong.
For me the 'Although practicality beats purity' is more important than
trying to beat a dead horse that is a p
On 12/8/2009 3:25 PM, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
"Martin P. Hellwig" writes:
Along with the duplication this introduces, it also means that any bug
fixes — even severe security fixes — in the third-party code will not be
addressed in your duplicate.
I disagree, what you ne
Ben Finney wrote:
This omits the heart of the problem: There is an extra delay between
release and propagation of the security fix. When the third-party code
is released with a security fix, and is available in the operating
system, the duplicate in your application will not gain the advantage o
"Martin P. Hellwig" writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Along with the duplication this introduces, it also means that any bug
> > fixes — even severe security fixes — in the third-party code will not be
> > addressed in your duplicate.
> I disagree, what you need is:
> - An automated build system
Ben Finney wrote:
"Martin P. Hellwig" writes:
Along with the duplication this introduces, it also means that any bug
fixes — even severe security fixes — in the third-party code will not be
addressed in your duplicate.
I disagree, what you need is:
- An automated build system for your del
"Martin P. Hellwig" writes:
> If the fear of customers disatification prevents you from using a
> certain version of X, you should consider a deployment strategy that
> cuts out dependencies as much as possible. Although this will result
> in a larger end package and possible high amount of dupli
12 matches
Mail list logo
