Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
Because packaging involves also validating and storing information needed for consistency checks.
Would be not so great if package A installs a /usr/bin/blub when there is a package B that does the same, as one example.
And then there is the whole fun package of shared libraries, stripping out debug information, permissions, aliasing, configuration handling, . . .
Packaging is the thing that looks like a light bulb, but attached to the light bulb is a leviathan :) -
You know I know I don't know all the things that can go wrong... but to me it seems, when you're considering package files.... especially in terms of a build system... you'd just change the install prefix and just archive the files from that after getting the names of shit in a nice list of sorts and make that list queryable, but if you're compiling a package, just take that make install output, and archive it with a descriptor......
why is osb so annoying...
i just want one little fucking package built
to allow the use of microsoft azure python modules.
why is that too much ?
rant