 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:26:20 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Yeah. It's great when it works like that. But sometimes it decides
>>> that it wants to install version X of the thing you asked for, which
>>> depends on a completely different version of something critical - GCC,
>>> the Linux kernel, libc, whatever. Obviously, replace that and you have
>>> to replace half the software on your HD. :-}
>>
>> Funny, I don't run into that problem - and generally haven't in the
>> nearly 15 years I've been running Linux.
>>
>> You *can* run into this if you use nonstandard repos regularly, but I
>> don't. What's in a repo like the openSUSE repos is tested so that
>> these types of conflicts don't occur.
>
> I'm guessing KNOPPIX is configured to look for something silly. When I
> tried to repeat the process with Ubuntu, it was fairly painless. I
> remember Gentoo was always a PITA though... and Debian, for that matter.
> (Debian was years ago tho.)
Well, KNOPPIX is primarily designed to run from the disc as I recall, so
it makes sense that package management wouldn't be as robust as on full-
on distributions.
>>> This, of course, completely defies the entire purpose of shared
>>> libraries! :-D
>>
>> Of course it does. But you were lamenting that "This never happens in
>> Windows" - this is a big part of the reason why.
>
> I think maybe like Darren said, people on Windows try to minimise
> dependencies. For example, I remember trying to set up an email program
> and discovering that you can't install it unless you have sound enabled
> in the Linux kernel. (WTF?) Because the package manager thinks foomail
> depends on libsound, or something.
Well, here again, this isn't something that I have recently run into.
But you can generally override the dependencies if you want; I converted
a Debian package to run on openSUSE (a video converter called HandBrake),
and the library dependencies weren't met because the library is called
something else on Debian (and yes, I do find that kinda frustrating). So
I installed with --nodeps and linked to the library name on openSUSE.
Works perfectly.
But that was the exception in my experience.
>>>> I never use IRC to ask for help - just never needed that sort of
>>>> immediacy.
>>> No - this was for help with the open-source project I'm trying to
>>> contribute to, not for Linux. ;-)
>>
>> And questions about VirtualBox (for example) are not out of place in an
>> appropriate Ubuntu or openSUSE community group.
>
> Even if you want to know which one would be the best choice to run
> Ubuntu on your Windows box? ;-)
Sure, why not? You think that people in the Ubuntu forums only ever run
their distro on real hardware?
>>> I added a section to the user manual. (Which is written in something
>>> called "docbook", by the way.)
>>
>> Very cool. Make sure you note that for your CV as well, things like
>> that can be useful.
>
> And you think I embarked on this crazy mission, *why*?? 0;-)
Good lad. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:29:42 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Of course it does. But you were lamenting that "This never happens in
>> Windows" - this is a big part of the reason why.
>
> This really hasn't been a problem in about 8 years. DLL hell was caused
> by people replacing working code in the OS directories with broken code.
> As soon as you implemented the policy that you can't overwrite
> microsoft's code with your own, the DLL hell bits went away.
I might go as far as 6 years ago, but I remember the folks doing package
management for desktop distribution in the company I worked for at the
time having to jump through all sorts of hoops to get some programs to
work together because of differences in DLL versions. We had something
like 15,000 desktops total and had to test all applications against all
others generally before rolling them out. We had a team of 4-6 people
who worked on the packaging.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:29:40 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Yah, that's right. First you install a binary version of the compiler.
> Then you use that to compile a minimal version of the compiler from
> source. Then you use *that* to compile a full version from source.
That used to be common with GCC - not sure if that's the one you're
using, but I remember the first time I saw it built was on a SunOS
platform, used the Sun CC compiler to build the first time and then it
built itself in order to fully optimise itself.
On hardware of the time, it generally took about 12 hours IIRC.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> work together because of differences in DLL versions.
I suppose it's not completely solved anywhere, no. But it's a lot better
than it was. At least DLL hell only affects third-party DLLs now, and
installing software that *doesn't* share DLLs won't break your code. :-)
It used to be a lot worse, tho, especially with things like third-party tcp
stacks (i.e., winsock.dll), where every browser came with a different
implementation of TCP and such. Or the MS C runtimes, or the "New" 3D
button graphics libraries, etc. People would do things like try to replace
the GUI libraries with their own in order to put their own "theme" on
things, thereby breaking everyone else who actually based their code on
released OS files. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> That used to be common with GCC
I remember seeing the bootstrap code for compiling Hermes, which had its own
assembly language that looked a lot like SQL for example. :-) It had
comments in there like "Only Greg, the God of Awesome, is allowed to touch
this, because the rest of you keep screwing it up."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:46:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> work together because of differences in DLL versions.
>
> I suppose it's not completely solved anywhere, no. But it's a lot better
> than it was. At least DLL hell only affects third-party DLLs now, and
> installing software that *doesn't* share DLLs won't break your code. :-)
I'd go with that....
> It used to be a lot worse, tho, especially with things like third-party
> tcp stacks (i.e., winsock.dll), where every browser came with a
> different implementation of TCP and such. Or the MS C runtimes, or the
> "New" 3D button graphics libraries, etc. People would do things like
> try to replace the GUI libraries with their own in order to put their
> own "theme" on things, thereby breaking everyone else who actually based
> their code on released OS files. :-)
Yeah, I can remember back in the Win9x days there being 3rd party TCPIP
stacks that you could create all sorts of havoc with.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:47:20 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That used to be common with GCC
>
> I remember seeing the bootstrap code for compiling Hermes, which had its
> own assembly language that looked a lot like SQL for example. :-) It had
> comments in there like "Only Greg, the God of Awesome, is allowed to
> touch this, because the rest of you keep screwing it up."
LOL, love it.
The oddest system I ever saw was one that used lisp at the system level.
I can't for the life of me remember the manufacturer of the system. It
was used for a prototype of an ATC simulator where the system applied AI
to the situation to do the control for the operator - used for training
purposes.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I should probably get out more...
Oh, and for some reason I picked this backlogged link to read today, for
anyone who doesn't know the basics of writing their own compiler.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc136756.aspx
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yah, that's right. First you install a binary version of the compiler.
>> Then you use that to compile a minimal version of the compiler from
>> source. Then you use *that* to compile a full version from source.
>
> That used to be common with GCC - not sure if that's the one you're
> using, but I remember the first time I saw it built was on a SunOS
> platform, used the Sun CC compiler to build the first time and then it
> built itself in order to fully optimise itself.
>
> On hardware of the time, it generally took about 12 hours IIRC.
Actually, I'm recompiling the Haskell compiler. Which is written in
Haskell. (And a small amount of C.)
It's still compiling. o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It's still compiling. o_O
...still going...
It has at least now finished compiling all the libraries. It's now
recompiling the compiler.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
