Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [OT] apt-get and Firefox

Expand Messages
  • Jefferson Smith
    ... I m sorry you mistook my questions/comments for wining, but at least we both agree that you are wining. I m glad we both agree that making the package
    Message 1 of 19 , Feb 10, 2005
      --- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Kulkis <akulkis@H...> wrote:

      > Lazy people who whine on mailing lists bug me.
      > I'm just returning your favor.
      >
      > This "problem" is quite trivial, because you seem to be the only
      > person in the whole Linux and Unix world who thinks that it needs
      > to be packaged in some other way, admits that it is a trivial task
      > to do, and yet, refuses to do it yourself.
      >
      > If you really want a package file , then take the 30 seconds of
      > effort it requires and do it.

      I'm sorry you mistook my questions/comments for wining, but at least
      we both agree that you are wining.

      I'm glad we both agree that making the package correctly should not be
      so dificult. It is far from your other suggestion that it is "OVERKILL".

      I do wish you were as up-to-date on what the entire Linux and Unix
      world thinks, but you could probably be more sensetive to what that is
      if you didn't stomp on every individuals opinion and let them know
      that you don't care what they think.

      Really, I'm planning to stop this pointless argument some day. I just
      couldn't resist this one more reply.
    • Aaron Kulkis
      ... If there s someone else out there who sees the need to make an RPM file for something that can be accomplished with: tar cvf /opt/mozilla and hasn t done
      Message 2 of 19 , Feb 10, 2005
        Jefferson Smith wrote:
        >
        > --- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Kulkis <akulkis@H...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >>Lazy people who whine on mailing lists bug me.
        >>I'm just returning your favor.
        >>
        >>This "problem" is quite trivial, because you seem to be the only
        >>person in the whole Linux and Unix world who thinks that it needs
        >>to be packaged in some other way, admits that it is a trivial task
        >>to do, and yet, refuses to do it yourself.
        >>
        >>If you really want a package file , then take the 30 seconds of
        >>effort it requires and do it.
        >
        >
        > I'm sorry you mistook my questions/comments for wining, but at least
        > we both agree that you are wining.
        >
        > I'm glad we both agree that making the package correctly should not be
        > so dificult. It is far from your other suggestion that it is "OVERKILL".
        >
        > I do wish you were as up-to-date on what the entire Linux and Unix
        > world thinks, but you could probably be more sensetive to what that is
        > if you didn't stomp on every individuals opinion and let them know
        > that you don't care what they think.
        >
        > Really, I'm planning to stop this pointless argument some day. I just
        > couldn't resist this one more reply.


        If there's someone else out there who sees the need to make
        an RPM file for something that can be accomplished with:

        tar cvf /opt/mozilla

        and hasn't done it, then why haven't they made the RPM file, either?

        Oh that's right...because it' NO BIG DEAL that there's no RPM out there.
      • Horror Vacui
        On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:47:23 -0500 ... Pardon me, but why should expecting a package management system to work as advertised be overkill? Farther up this
        Message 3 of 19 , Feb 10, 2005
          On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:47:23 -0500
          Aaron wrote:

          > Jefferson Smith wrote:
          > >
          > > You're missing my point, but don't worry because I'm used to it.
          > >
          > > The reason it doesn't help me is because
          > > 1. I am not managing a large number of systems
          > > 2. I am using APT, and find no advantage in requiring something in
          > > addition for a "special" package. After all, that package would work
          > > fine if it was not badly packaged. You yourself pointed out how
          > > simple it should be to put this one in rpm. This is not about the
          > > specific
          >
          >
          > Look, the only things that need an RPM are those in which the
          > RPM is difficult to make.
          >
          > The simpler it is to make an RPM file, the less the app needs it.
          > In the case of Netscape...let me introduce you to a word that might
          > not be part of your vocabulary:
          >
          > OVERKILL.


          Pardon me, but why should expecting a package management system to work
          as advertised be overkill?

          Farther up this thread you have said that the purpose of tools like rpm
          and apt is to put files scattered accross various directories in their
          proper places. While this might be true for rpm, in case of apt this is
          a grave misrepresentation. Alone the incorrect classification - .rpm is
          a package format, while apt is a package management system (with .deb as
          the package format, somewhat comparable to .rpm).

          Apt, as a package management system, is there not just to put your files
          in right places, it does much more - resolves dependencies, configures
          packages, takes care of updates and whatnot. One can argue (and I
          certainly will) that it fails to fullfill much of the promises it makes,
          but that doesn't invalidate its usefullness as a package management
          system.

          If one is running debian, the desire not to have to install software
          manually is completely legitimate. For a single computer user,
          installing a package or two manually is no big problem, but doing so in
          a production environment with many machines becomes a huge problem. Note
          that with apt, you're supposed to be able to bring your machine
          completely up-to-date with just ONE command:

          apt-get upgrade

          (which works in theory, in the praxis you'll need to do apt-get update
          beforehand). What you're proposing - download firefox to opt, unpack it,
          update wrapper script etc - means *multiplying* the amount of work
          required to update the machine by several times, just for the sake of
          one package! Now, if apt fails to fulfill what it promises to do for
          you, that's just the way things are, but why one should deliberately
          make it fail by installing packages manually (for no good reason)
          escapes me.

          I use gentoo, which as you might know has an excellent package
          management system (adopted from FreeBSD and improved) capable of
          compiling all software from sources. So following your logic, since it
          does exactly the same thing I do when I compile software from source, it
          would be useless? Rest assured it isn't, dependency resolution,
          automatic downloads, builds and installations, plus the automatic
          updates are very useful.

          Cheers

          --
          Horror Vacui

          Registered Linux user #257714

          Go get yourself... counted: http://counter.li.org/
          - and keep following the GNU.
        • Aaron Kulkis
          ... What packages are dependant upon Mozilla being installed? NONE What packages beyond the basic X11 system does Mozilla require? NONE ... He s the one who
          Message 4 of 19 , Feb 10, 2005
            Horror Vacui wrote:
            > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:47:23 -0500
            > Aaron wrote:
            >
            >
            >>Jefferson Smith wrote:
            >>
            >>>You're missing my point, but don't worry because I'm used to it.
            >>>
            >>>The reason it doesn't help me is because
            >>>1. I am not managing a large number of systems
            >>>2. I am using APT, and find no advantage in requiring something in
            >>>addition for a "special" package. After all, that package would work
            >>>fine if it was not badly packaged. You yourself pointed out how
            >>>simple it should be to put this one in rpm. This is not about the
            >>>specific
            >>
            >>
            >>Look, the only things that need an RPM are those in which the
            >>RPM is difficult to make.
            >>
            >>The simpler it is to make an RPM file, the less the app needs it.
            >>In the case of Netscape...let me introduce you to a word that might
            >>not be part of your vocabulary:
            >>
            >> OVERKILL.
            >
            >
            >
            > Pardon me, but why should expecting a package management system to work
            > as advertised be overkill?
            >

            What packages are dependant upon Mozilla being installed?
            NONE

            What packages beyond the basic X11 system does Mozilla require?
            NONE


            > Farther up this thread you have said that the purpose of tools like rpm
            > and apt is to put files scattered accross various directories in their
            > proper places. While this might be true for rpm, in case of apt this is
            > a grave misrepresentation. Alone the incorrect classification - .rpm is
            > a package format, while apt is a package management system (with .deb as
            > the package format, somewhat comparable to .rpm).

            He's the one who started specifying RPM files, not me.

            >
            > Apt, as a package management system, is there not just to put your files
            > in right places, it does much more - resolves dependencies, configures
            > packages, takes care of updates and whatnot. One can argue (and I

            Other than having X11, what dependancies does Mozilla have?
            NONE

            What packages depend on Mozilla?
            NONE

            > certainly will) that it fails to fullfill much of the promises it makes,
            > but that doesn't invalidate its usefullness as a package management
            > system.
            >
            > If one is running debian, the desire not to have to install software
            > manually is completely legitimate. For a single computer user,
            > installing a package or two manually is no big problem, but doing so in
            > a production environment with many machines becomes a huge problem. Note
            > that with apt, you're supposed to be able to bring your machine
            > completely up-to-date with just ONE command:
            >
            > apt-get upgrade
            >
            > (which works in theory, in the praxis you'll need to do apt-get update
            > beforehand). What you're proposing - download firefox to opt, unpack it,
            > update wrapper script etc - means *multiplying* the amount of work
            > required to update the machine by several times, just for the sake of
            > one package! Now, if apt fails to fulfill what it promises to do for
            > you, that's just the way things are, but why one should deliberately
            > make it fail by installing packages manually (for no good reason)
            > escapes me.

            tar cvf mozilla.tar /usr/local/mozilla
            rcp mozilla.tar somehostname:/tmp/mozilla.tar
            rsh somehostname ( cd /usr/local; tar xvf /tmp/mozilla.tar )

            Wasn't that difficult?


            >
            > I use gentoo, which as you might know has an excellent package
            > management system (adopted from FreeBSD and improved) capable of
            > compiling all software from sources. So following your logic, since it
            > does exactly the same thing I do when I compile software from source, it
            > would be useless? Rest assured it isn't, dependency resolution,


            WHAT DEPENDANCY RESOLUTION ????

            The only dependancy Mozilla has is X11
            and there are no packages that depend on Mozilla.

            > automatic downloads, builds and installations, plus the automatic
            > updates are very useful.
            >
            > Cheers
            >
          • Jefferson Smith
            Aaron, at least I see now where you are comming from [besides outer space]. You really need to read this thread from the start if you are thinking that nobody
            Message 5 of 19 , Feb 11, 2005
              Aaron, at least I see now where you are comming from [besides outer
              space]. You really need to read this thread from the start if you are
              thinking that nobody made a package for Firefox. I don't even know
              where you got that idea.

              And tell me what medication you are on, so I can avoid it ;-)

              Looks like there is nothing else to say about this. Basically, it has
              already been said. --jeffs

              --- In suselinuxusers@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Kulkis <akulkis@H...> wrote:
              > Horror Vacui wrote:
              > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:47:23 -0500
              > > Aaron wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > >>Jefferson Smith wrote:
              > >>
              > >>>You're missing my point, but don't worry because I'm used to it.
              > >>>
              > >>>The reason it doesn't help me is because
              > >>>1. I am not managing a large number of systems
              > >>>2. I am using APT, and find no advantage in requiring something in
              > >>>addition for a "special" package. After all, that package would work
              > >>>fine if it was not badly packaged. You yourself pointed out how
              > >>>simple it should be to put this one in rpm. This is not about the
              > >>>specific
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>Look, the only things that need an RPM are those in which the
              > >>RPM is difficult to make.
              > >>
              > >>The simpler it is to make an RPM file, the less the app needs it.
              > >>In the case of Netscape...let me introduce you to a word that might
              > >>not be part of your vocabulary:
              > >>
              > >> OVERKILL.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Pardon me, but why should expecting a package management system to
              work
              > > as advertised be overkill?
              > >
              >
              > What packages are dependant upon Mozilla being installed?
              > NONE
              >
              > What packages beyond the basic X11 system does Mozilla require?
              > NONE
              >
              >
              > > Farther up this thread you have said that the purpose of tools
              like rpm
              > > and apt is to put files scattered accross various directories in their
              > > proper places. While this might be true for rpm, in case of apt
              this is
              > > a grave misrepresentation. Alone the incorrect classification -
              .rpm is
              > > a package format, while apt is a package management system (with
              .deb as
              > > the package format, somewhat comparable to .rpm).
              >
              > He's the one who started specifying RPM files, not me.
              >
              > >
              > > Apt, as a package management system, is there not just to put your
              files
              > > in right places, it does much more - resolves dependencies, configures
              > > packages, takes care of updates and whatnot. One can argue (and I
              >
              > Other than having X11, what dependancies does Mozilla have?
              > NONE
              >
              > What packages depend on Mozilla?
              > NONE
              >
              > > certainly will) that it fails to fullfill much of the promises it
              makes,
              > > but that doesn't invalidate its usefullness as a package management
              > > system.
              > >
              > > If one is running debian, the desire not to have to install software
              > > manually is completely legitimate. For a single computer user,
              > > installing a package or two manually is no big problem, but doing
              so in
              > > a production environment with many machines becomes a huge
              problem. Note
              > > that with apt, you're supposed to be able to bring your machine
              > > completely up-to-date with just ONE command:
              > >
              > > apt-get upgrade
              > >
              > > (which works in theory, in the praxis you'll need to do apt-get update
              > > beforehand). What you're proposing - download firefox to opt,
              unpack it,
              > > update wrapper script etc - means *multiplying* the amount of work
              > > required to update the machine by several times, just for the sake of
              > > one package! Now, if apt fails to fulfill what it promises to do for
              > > you, that's just the way things are, but why one should deliberately
              > > make it fail by installing packages manually (for no good reason)
              > > escapes me.
              >
              > tar cvf mozilla.tar /usr/local/mozilla
              > rcp mozilla.tar somehostname:/tmp/mozilla.tar
              > rsh somehostname ( cd /usr/local; tar xvf /tmp/mozilla.tar )
              >
              > Wasn't that difficult?
              >
              >
              > >
              > > I use gentoo, which as you might know has an excellent package
              > > management system (adopted from FreeBSD and improved) capable of
              > > compiling all software from sources. So following your logic, since it
              > > does exactly the same thing I do when I compile software from
              source, it
              > > would be useless? Rest assured it isn't, dependency resolution,
              >
              >
              > WHAT DEPENDANCY RESOLUTION ????
              >
              > The only dependancy Mozilla has is X11
              > and there are no packages that depend on Mozilla.
              >
              > > automatic downloads, builds and installations, plus the automatic
              > > updates are very useful.
              > >
              > > Cheers
              > >
            • Aaron Kulkis
              ... So you re saying that there is a package for firefox. So, like, why all of the whining?
              Message 6 of 19 , Feb 11, 2005
                Jefferson Smith wrote:
                >
                > Aaron, at least I see now where you are comming from [besides outer
                > space]. You really need to read this thread from the start if you are
                > thinking that nobody made a package for Firefox. I don't even know

                So you're saying that there is a package for firefox.
                So, like, why all of the whining?
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.