cbagger01
Group: Members
Posts: 4264
Joined: Oct. 2003 |
 |
Posted: Dec. 28 2005,20:31 |
 |
The main reasons to avoid mydsl extensions (excepting UCI extensions) on a hd installation is:
The extensions, which at their core are just structured tarballs, can overwrite various library and other files and there is no "undo" or "uninstall" button once you have done this.
myDSL extensions are very similar to early Slackware packages in the sense that it is really a software delivery system and not a true advanced pacakge manager.
So dependencies are also not handled in mydsl extensions and the Debian apt "installed packages" list is not updated, either.
Finally, there is the whole "user must be DSL" requirement that is fine for single user livecd/usb/frugal installations but as you know can be problematic for mutiuser hd installations. Can this situation be improved? Sure, but who does it and when? The developers have a lot of other ideas in the mix meaning that it is unlikely that this issue (which is only an "issue" in certain situations) will be addressed in the foreseeable future. But then again, what do I know?
From your first post in this thread, it seems like a good fit for your needs would be either:
(1) A Debian netinstall with minimal additional software or bloated window managers
or
(2) A KNOPPIX "Debian Style" hd installation with a minimal window manager selected like fluxbox or icewm instead of KDE or GNOME.
I like the idea of a mydsl development section. It could be very helpful for people who wish to compile stuff from source.
However, like the other mydsl sections, it would also be a USER CONTRIBUTED area.
So if you would like to help out, please take some of the critical development libs/packages that you have installed and wrap them up into extensions and submit them to the testing area.
I'm sure that it will help people in the future who might be in the same boat as you.
|
.
DSL Market ,
Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
