On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 16:06, Austin Acton wrote:
>
> Now I don't understand what you're saying.
> If you are saying that the rpms are universal, that's not the case. If
> they were, you wouldn't need to post three versions of each.
> If you are saying that Fernando's RPMs are useful and easy to install, I
> completely agree with you. I don't think I ever implied otherwise. The
> only reason you need the Plant is that not every distribution provides
> these apps as RPMs. One would expect at least RedHat to work as hard as
> we do (both Mandrake volunteers and Fernando) to make audio apps
> available to inexperienced users as easy-to-install packages.
>
We are in VIOLENT AGREEMENT! Planet RPMs and Mandrake's equivalent are
both fine. They support their specific distributions very well. No
disagreement there.
I was originally responding to a statement you made:
"PlanetCCRMA is a great idea and a great tool, but its rpms are quite
generic, so you may have problems if they are dynamically linked to old
libraries (glibc most notably). That's why it's best to use rpms
designed specifically for your distro AND your version of that distro."
I think that those of us using the Planet did not, and still do not,
understand this statement, especially the first line. In the context of
this discussion ("Why not Mandrake?" and because I am a user who knows
nothing, I wanted to understand if Mandrake has a better technology than
Redhat. If rpmi/urmpi (hope I have that right) solves problems that rpm
-Uvh doesn't, then I'm interested in that.
In your comment "if they are dynamically linked to old libraries (glibc
most notably)." you seem to be stating that some of us using the Planet
flow ARE using "old libraries". I am not aware of that. I think
Fernando's system does an awful lot, sans a human error, to make sure
this isn't true. I do not KNOW this, but that is my impression.
And again, on the second line we are all in agreement.
