Subject: Re: lightweight groff package?
To: Sean Davis <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/20/2003 15:15:15
[ On Wednesday, August 20, 2003 at 06:31:36 (-0400), Sean Davis wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: lightweight groff package?
> I am forced to agree here. There are so many packages that add a huge number
> of dependencies that they don't really need, and that just makes keeping
> packages up to date more of a PITA than it already is.
The additional dependencies -- i.e. the making use of additional
features in a package which require other packages to fully implement --
is not the problem. The problem is that those dependencies are run-time
dependencies, not build-time dependencies.
I've demonstrated that only using static libraries from other packages
and turning all those run-time dependencies into build-time dependencies
pretty much elimiates all the hassle and overhead of trying to update
packages without de-installing and re-installing pretty much everything.
I.e. it is fair to blame the use of poorly implemented shared libraries
in this case; but it is not fair to blame these problems on the fact
that packages often need other third party packages to implement full
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org> Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>