On Mar 8, 2013 7:04 AM, "Paul" <pfrederick1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com, "C. Beck" <usabecker@...> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > There is no reason the latest version of whatever couldn't be built
> > from source on your machine if desired. Granted that may still be
> > considered bad luck, but it is an option.
> >
>
> I've often seen plenty of reasons later code could not be built.
Configure scripts look for >= versions of development packages to build
against. Often if one software package is out of date many are, and that
leaves you with tool chains that do not meet minimum requirements.
Yeah, that would be what I consider the bad luck part. My point was just
that relying on a distribution's repositories is not the only option
available for installing software in linux - That's what the comment I
responded to seemed to be saying. There are often ways around dependency
issues if a program is wanted bad enough - at least that has been my
limited experience.
>
> I run Debian stable so I see it all of the time. I don't know why
developers set such stringent standards, I suspect they don't even realize
they're doing it half of the time, it works for them, so they don't give it
another thought. Everyone should be running the distribution they are, etc.
etc. It could also be laziness, or simple incompetence too.
I'm not in a position to judge them, but it can be very annoying at times,
that is for sure.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (14) |
No comments:
Post a Comment