It's not just that, but why are there so many broken down packages? -bin, -dev, -meta, -src, -lib, -doc, etc. my God do we need this many? Many distributions use just one all inclusive package to avoid problems unless its a temporary dependency build time only. Yes, I'd say it broken, far worse though that one can realize, and far confusing to some people as well.

If you run "./configure && make && make install" you get an all inclusive package. That's in every handbook and textbook I've read too.

This structured, repurposed, and tiered package system is utter nonsense. There's packages that install nothing but a symlink for crying out loud!

What .deb packages need is simplification, not more convulsion to muck things up and complicate things worse for new uses.
________________________________
From: T.J. Duchene<mailto:t.j.duchene@gmail.com>
Sent: ‎7/‎17/‎2015 11:53 AM
To: dng@???<mailto:dng@lists.dyne.org>
Subject: Re: [DNG] dng@???

KatolaZ:

> > > You guys talk about supporting half a dozen init systems like it
> > > was similar to providing half a dozen different editors, which
> > > believe me is not quite the case.

hendrik:

> You're arguing for setting up the framework that makes it possible,
> rather than to do the heavy lifting. It would also provide those who
> want to make various package-maintainers a path to follow to make
> their packages suitable for multiple inits, in case they whould
> choose to do so.
>

Hi, guys! Just my two cents!


Just to be clear, before I say anything else, I am not talking about
Devuan 1. That's set in stone. As far as the future, I personally
think that init freedom/flexibility is something that really needs to
be evaluated, so that Devuan does not fall into the same mono-culture
trap that Debian has. One of Devuan's key concerns should be the
avoidance of mono-culture thinking.

I actually read somewhere that Ubuntu is already planning on abandoning
the Deb format in favor of something new. I wasn't too thrilled with
the idea at first, but the more I thought about it, the more I am
convinced that something has to change. Ian Murdoch who
founded Debian, advocated changing the way things are done (when he
started Progeny, but because he wasn't the head of Debian he was
basically ignored). Debian packaging practices NEED to change as needs
change, and they haven't. Even RedHat has changed their packaging more
than Debian.

It was packaging that led to Debian's systemd versus S5 fracas
in the first place. Being a programmer and having packaged software for
both Debian and RedHat style Linuxes, I see absolutely no reason why it
is not technically feasible to support multiple init systems. Even if
you know how to man-handle APT, there are too many longstanding issues
in Debian packaging that never get any attention at all, because the
vast majority of the Debian developers always use Sid. There are no
delta support. There are no (or very few) alternative package chains.
There are no really reliable methods of rollback for a bad package.

One thing that drives me crazy is that you cannot pull updated
source code to use on Debian Stable from the other Debian branches for
a local apt-build without ridiculously convoluted configuration
(if it works at all). It's actually the lack of any real change in the
packaging that has started me looking at other Linuxes for a
replacement.

Debian packaging has become to rigid and inflexible.

Thanks! See you all soon =)
T.J.


_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@???
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng