From: Michael R. <mr...@us...> - 2003-11-05 21:28:25
|
Hi Rocky, > On further reflection, why make a distinction between the first and > second choice: include everything versus include everything but let > people specify to use their installed libraries when they want? The first basically says: "I don't care about libraries at all. Do what you like as long as I am fine." The second at least says: "I know these things exist, just help me with them. People who know their way can do differently." > What's the advantage of not providing the option? > > > ( ) I use a package system like apt-get, synaptic, up2date, etc. > > vs > > > ( ) I know my package system well enough. The latter is simply shorter. ;) > I don't see what my with knowing the package system has to do with > the package system's ability to track dependencies. You have to know the system to use that ability. > So how about: > > I use a package system like apt-get, synaptic, up2date, etc that > tracks dependencies or I can easily satisfy them myself. How about: I use a package system that tracks dependencies for me or I know how to satisfy them myself. Michael -- printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning: defective CD-ROM (volume sequence number). Enabling \"cruft\" mount option.\n"); 2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/fs/isofs/inode.c |