Tim Rowledge wrote:
> 
> Whatever the actual implementation for packaging, please, let's not end
> up with the utterly infuriating problem I keep hitting everytime I am
> unfortunate enough to have to try to load anything on linux (OK RedHat
> in particular, but let's not quibble about inconsequentials) and get
> told 'oh this depends on package
> furble-unco-wibble_pre1.x86-k.bar.srpm'. Yeah? So what? Where is it?

Probably on the distribution disk!

> What is a compatible version?

The one it tells you you need!

> Do I already have one?

See above!

Ah well, that just about wraps it up for Linux, doesn't it ;-). Of
course, the alternative is to have statically linked libraries (and 40Gb
drives to replace 10Gb ones). And of course, Windows suffers from the
same problem -- missing dlls or (a bigger one) the same dll with
different datestamps. Debian have a superior package management system
which will download dependencies automatically and while....
> 
> Another annoyance would be the nonsensical dependence; you have to load
> a umpteen gazillabyte package just for the logical equivalent of a
> single header file.

This wouldn't be anything like as big a problem on something relatively
small like Squeak. Of course, the "how it's done in Debian" is available
to anyone who reads C better than me! Let's not re-invent the wheel!

Cheers

John

-- 
******************************************************************************
Marx: "Why do Anarchists only drink herbal tea?"
Proudhon: "Because all proper tea is theft."
******************************************************************************