Matej Cepl wrote: > On 2008-09-03, 23:41 GMT, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> That works for a Mom and Pop desktop but doesn't work as >> a developer's workstation. When developing software you might >> need a library that does Foo. Look on the system, hey, I can >> use libFoo! A few weeks later, when you remove Gnome-Foo from >> your system because your shiny new application does the job, >> your app suddenly can't find libFoo.... > > No, you would still find libFoo, because yum would still have > recorded that libFoo was directly installed, and not just to > satisfy dependency on Gnome-foo. Don't say it is not possible, > when it was working (and I were using it) for years on Debian. > You're misunderstanding the scenario. libFoo is not directly installed. It's installed to satisfy the dependency for Gnome-Foo. But after it's installed, I start looking for something that let's me develop a new program that does Foo. libFoo is installed on my system so I start using it to create my app. This is possibly more pronounced in the world of scripting languages where runtime and development bits are one and the same package. > Moreover, even if it didn't help your developer (and I claim that > it would), I would still prefer solution which cures problems of > at least normal users and wouldn't help developers (who should > now how to fix their system). > In my reply to Callum Lerwick I pointed out that this is a fallacy. Developers != System Administrators. Developers are end-users just like Mom and Pop firefox+openoffice users. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
