LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   Dependency checking this, dependency checking that. (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/dependency-checking-this-dependency-checking-that-757768/)

Jeebizz 09-25-2009 01:34 PM

Dependency checking this, dependency checking that.
 
I am a Slackware user, and only steered away once years ago when I played with Mandrake 9.x. After that, I came back to Slackware during 10.0 series, and never looked at any other distro ever again. Still, every-other-linux-user that doesn't use Slackware, tries it, and then one of the most common complaint, besides 'no package management' (that one is BEYOND me, since there IS one), is of course the obligatory 'no dependency checking.'

So, as a Slacker I am dumbfounded as to WHY Slackware needs it (according to users of other distros). What are we Slackers 'missing', that other distros provide as a 'feature' that Slackware just doesn't do?

Sooner or later I will play with a dependency-checking-distro, just to really see what the hell all this hype is about. Maybe Debian. I can't help but sound so, whats the word I'm looking for...Argumentative, skeptical...Whatever. But I just don't see it. What are we missing, according to those that go on and on about it? Cause I don't feel we are missing a thing. Just looking for any kind of justification from a non-slacker, that is all. Whats so special about it? :scratch:

linuxpokernut 09-25-2009 01:48 PM

To each their own. Windows users only get 1 or 2 disros to hate on at a time, we get tons.
j/k.

I don't know really? It works for me but I can see how its not for everyone. Theres 2 package managers that I know about but I guess the inability to resolve is the factor that leads to the urban legend that they don't exist.

Ubuntu certainly is more convenient than slackware. Maybe thats the #1 deciding factor for some people.

mjones490 09-25-2009 01:52 PM

I use Linux From Scratch, so my dependency checker is 'make'. If 'make' fails to build a package, it's usually because there is a dependency missing.

Jeebizz 09-25-2009 01:56 PM

Ubuntu's 'convenience' is merely the fact that it is a fork of Debian that still can use the massive repo that Debian is known for, not just the 'everything-is-already-setup-for-you.' If you need a program that isn't there, you can still use .deb packages as far as I know. Don't get me wrong, I think Ubuntu is great that it can utilise such a large repo, but as I said I would be willing to at least TRY a dependency checking distro, and that will most likely be Debian itself. I don't want to fiddle with having to get my root privileges back, just because Ubuntu thinks it knows whats best for me.

I don't hate Ubuntu, nor do I hate Debian, or any other distro. I just want to see what all the 'hub-bub' is about with dep. checking. Ubuntu itself is aimed towards the non technical, which is great, except that I don't agree that the user should be totally shielded from their own system, which unfortunately Ubuntu does. If thats the case, the user may as well stay with Vista, and be forced to click through endless 'warning' dialogs about each and every little thing.

carbonfiber 09-25-2009 02:01 PM

The hell with it.

linuxpokernut 09-25-2009 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeebizz (Post 3697046)
Ubuntu's 'convenience' is merely the fact that it is a fork of Debian that still can use the massive repo that Debian is known for, not just the 'everything-is-already-setup-for-you.' If you need a program that isn't there, you can still use .deb packages as far as I know. Don't get me wrong, I think Ubuntu is great that it can utilise such a large repo, but as I said I would be willing to at least TRY a dependency checking distro, and that will most likely be Debian itself. I don't want to fiddle with having to get my root privileges back, just because Ubuntu thinks it knows whats best for me.

I don't hate Ubuntu, nor do I hate Debian, or any other distro. I just want to see what all the 'hub-bub' is about with dep. checking. Ubuntu itself is aimed towards the non technical, which is great, except that I don't agree that the user should be totally shielded from their own system, which unfortunately Ubuntu does. If thats the case, the user may as well stay with Vista, and be forced to click through endless 'warning' dialogs about each and every little thing.

Thats why you don't use Ubuntu, not why people don't use slackware. Its easier for Joe-end-user to set up Ubuntu coz all they have to do is type a few $sudu apt-get installs. I agree with everything you're saying on a personal level but its easier to drive automatic than stick, so more people drive automatic.

carbonfiber 09-25-2009 02:10 PM

The hell with it.

Jeebizz 09-25-2009 02:18 PM

Perhaps. I never claimed I was an expert, nor a distro developer. Of course they know more than me, so does Volkerding ;). I am sure he knows just as much them though. :p

I don't feel 'hardcore' though, just for the fact that I run Slackware, as I am sure a Gentoo user doesn't feel 'hardcore' either, or LFS user, cause they compile each and every little thing. Minimalising Slackware may or may not be a PITA depending (pun-intended ;) ) on if it is a server, or desktop. Desktop yes, I will give you that, cause of X. Sure I do full installs too, cause I'm also lazy. But I don't feel 'so hardcore though', and don't worry I know you didn't insinuate in any way that I was. ;)


As I stated earlier too. I am more than willing to try a dep. checking distro, (Here's looking at you Debian) but coming from Slackware, the lack there of, hasn't stopped me from installing running new things.

Lordandmaker 09-25-2009 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeebizz (Post 3697022)
So, as a Slacker I am dumbfounded as to WHY Slackware needs it (according to users of other distros).

Slackware only needs it for the people that want it, which are the people who are asking for it.
Clearly, there are many, many people who try slackware, and like it without the dependency checking. You're presumably one of them.

Quote:

What are we Slackers 'missing', that other distros provide as a 'feature' that Slackware just doesn't do?
Dependency checking, as you've said yourself. It isn't necessarily a universally desired feature, which is why Slackware doesn't have it. Some people want it, other people don't.

Quote:

Sooner or later I will play with a dependency-checking-distro, just to really see what the hell all this hype is about.
Coming from the other camp, as a Debian indoctrinate, I keep being tempted to try out Slackware to find out what all that hype is about. I would expect to find that the hype is about things that don't matter to me (as with most other distros I've tried - Debian does pretty much exactly what I want), and I'd imagine you would do the same with Debian.

Quote:

Just looking for any kind of justification from a non-slacker, that is all. Whats so special about it?
It's personal preference.
It's why I ride a motorbike and the guy who sits next to me drives a car. He likes the features a car has, I like the features a motorbike has.

unSpawn 09-29-2009 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lordandmaker (Post 3697073)
It's personal preference. It's why I ride a motorbike and the guy who sits next to me drives a car. He likes the features a car has, I like the features a motorbike has.

Couldn't it have more practical applications than "personal preference"? Say you have to set up ten machines for different purposes? Do you have (does your boss/clients grant you) the time to endlessly TS why something isn't working? Or would you be helped with having required dependencies at the ready? Just wondering.

jiml8 09-29-2009 06:29 PM

There are two sides to dependency checking.

I've done plenty of installs where configure failed, causing me to obtain another tar.gz package to satisfy the dependency, then I couldn't configure IT because of something, and on and on, sometimes for days, until I had managed to obtain, compile, and install everything I needed. So, what started as a fairly simple install turned into a freakin' nightmare.

For that reason, I like package managers that handle dependencies. It sees it needs a dependency, it goes and gets it. I tell it to install xyz.rpm, and it winds up telling me it will be installing 34 different rpms in order to make that one work. OK by me; just do it.

But, then, sometimes the dependency checking turns out to be circular or not sufficiently intelligent. Package xyz.10.rpm will be replacing xyz.09.rpm but not until package abc.10.rpm replaces package abc.09.rpm. So package abc.10.rpm won't go in because xyz.10.rpm is required and only xyz.09.rpm is installed. There are circumstances where the package manager figures this out, and other circumstances where it aborts the install because of it.

Also sometimes file mno.txt from package abc.10.rpm conflicts with file mno.txt from package 123.05.rpm. This will cause aborted installs, though when you look at them you find that these two txt files are the same, or substantially the same, or irrelevant anyway...just provided from different places.

When these things happen, you wind up installing from the command line using the -force option, and if you are smart you'll take a look at the conflicts to make sure that -force is the right thing to do. It usually is, but you do have to be a bit careful.

On balance, I have to say that a dependency checking package manager is a lot less work than one that doesn't. But it isn't perfect, by any means. Though, I must say that apt seems to be a lot smarter than rpm is about it.

brianL 09-29-2009 06:51 PM

I use mostly SlackBuilds, and on the web page for any item it will tell you what else is needed. So that's no problem.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39 PM.