2008/9/15 Callum Lerwick <seg@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 12:33 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> I would turn this argument around: rpm missed its opportunities "to do >> various things" forcing people to circumvent rpm's limitations by >> ruck-sacking rpm with add-ons such as yum, yast/ycl etc. > > Oh come on. How is layered, loosely coupled, encapsulated separation of > concerns NOT good design? > > The diversity of RPM front ends is a sign we're doing things right. No. If even 1/10 of the energy that goes into all these alternate frontends went into fixing yum, we would have one better frontend instead of multiples with different sets of bugs. > Do we want to drag all of Yum's deps (python, and so on) down in to RPM > itself? If you have a lot of C code, adding a scripting language on top is a *very* sensible way to write an application. > The GNOME icon cache is a whole other bag of crackrock. Is it really > required for system functioning? Look, building an actual operating system turns out to be harder than just wget and untar and call it done. There are going to be other things that will need global knowledge outside of an individual piece of software. > I'm assuming since we're bending over > backward for it, it is required. Duplicate spec scriptlets stink, but I > think the real problem is in GNOME. Should the cache really be system > wide? Why is it not per-user, and automatically re-generated? That would be immensely wasteful on the kinds of servers that have multiple users. I would think this would be obvious and not require explanation.. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
