[haiku] Re: Core libraries / package management
- From: Sean Collins <smc.collins@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:13:58 +0000
Brecht Machiels wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:46:31 +0100, Zenja Solaja <solaja@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Over on the development mailing list there is talk about the damages
caused by an update of libcurl, and how a point release broke so many
apps. This is the sort of thing we used to mock Linux with - the
never ending
dependancy "whack-a-mole" game. During the great package management
debate
of 2011, so many users (not developers) were very vocally against
package
management, for the very same reason libcurl demonstrated. The only
time
package management works is when the packages are strictly controlled
by the core developers.
If the package metadata (dependency info) can be separately updated by
the community, as proposed (and still planned, I hope), these kinds of
problems will be detected and resolved very quickly (for example,
resulting in reverting to the previous libcurl), even without action
needed by any developers. I believe this is a fundamental advantage
over Linux package managers that can make it work well.
any thoughts about maybe having a rating system and compatibility
flag of some sort in the meta data ? IE this APP/library/package is
tested and works properly ? the recent breakage of webpositive does go
to shows that updating often, doesn't really solve any problems and
likely introduces new ones minus some sort of formal compliance testing.
Just saying
Sean
Other related posts:
