[wplug] Package Management

[JSPost at uss.com]

As a linux afficionado in training, I'm not sure which is more important...

On one hand,
what could be cooler than a penguin as a mascot,
or altering source code to fit your needs...

On the other hand,
semantics refers to the rules of language with the
intent that we can openly communicate and share information.
which sounds like GPL to me...

confused,
John S.



> I agree...what is more important-- semantics or coolness-factor. Being
> linux afficionados, I think we all know the answer to THAT question.
>
> -Nate
>
>--On Monday, June 17, 2002 5:28 PM -0400 Evan DiBiase <evand at wplug.org>
>wrote:r
>
>> On Monday, June 17, 2002, at 04:50  PM, Nate Sharadin wrote:
>>
>>> Guess I just tend to go with the traditional Webster on this one. :-)
>>
>> As a fellow language enthusiast, I can definitely see your position.
I've
>> always heard apt described as "package-management-system-agnostic,"
>> though, and it sounds a far sight cooler than "APT doesn't care which
>> package management system you use." ;-)
>>
>> -Evan
>>
>>> --On Monday, June 17, 2002 4:45 PM -0400 Zach Paine <zman at wplug.org>
>>> wrote:r
>>>
>>>> Well, now that we are completely off topic.  According to WordNet,
>>>> agnostic means uncertain of all claims of knowledge.  So in terms of
>>>> APT's relationship to a package management system, apt does not need
to
>>>> know much about the system.  So in this case Mr. DiBiase used the word
>>>> correctly.  On the other hand, Webster's 1913 defines agnostic as
>>>> "neither affirming or denying the existence of a personal Diety", and
>>>> while APT is rumored to have Super-Cow powers, this use of the word
>>>> would not make much sense in the original context.  Guess it goes
>>>> either
>>>> way :)
>>>>
>>>> Zach
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 15:56, Nate Sharadin wrote:
>>>>> "APT was designed to be (mostly) package-management-system-agnostic."
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean APT doesn't believe that there is proof that
>>>>> package-management-systems can exist or cannot exist?
>>>>>
>>>>> Curiously,
>>>>> -Nate Sharadin
>>>>> nps5 at pitt.edu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --On Monday, June 17, 2002 11:58 AM -0400 Evan DiBiase
>>>>> <evand at wplug.org>
>>>>> wrote:r
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Monday, June 17, 2002, at 11:26  AM, Doug Green wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Hey all- can't you also install apt-get for RedHat? If so, does
>>>>> this
>>>>> >> cause any problems, such as messing up the rpm database (ie: does
>>>>> rpm
>>>>> >> "see" these packages too?).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If you're using APT on RedHat, you're probably using RPM as the
>>>>> package
>>>>> > management system (unless you're some sort of masochist). APT was
>>>>> > designed to be (mostly) package-management-system-agnostic.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -Evan