dll-hell versus dependancy-hell
so im not sure where to start with this thread.
I thought about bashing linux, but that never gets a positive responce.
I also thought about a poll, but didn't want to spend the time.
I also thought about praising Windows, but that just sent chills down my spine.
so i ended up here:
Why, OH why, can't the developer of an open source project simply include the dependancies with the source of his/her product?
Lets say I want to install xyz from company abc. Their product requires lib.123. Why can the abc company simply package up lib.123 in with their rpm, or tgz?
Now I know linux is about choice and that I can install lib.123 from where ever, but, who would? Most people, I would assume, go to google, find the lib.123 project and install it from there.
Then, heaven forbid THAT lib.123 require yet another dependancy!
And if linux is about choice, why can't abc say, "we have kindly included lib.123 for you, and you can choice to install our version or not, but you will need some form of it before xyz will work".
I know apt, and slapt, and yum and all those happy installers work, but I can't install apt without 10 other dependancies! So to install the nice installer one still has to fight with dependancies.
Now, this thread is labeled dll-hell versus dependancy-hell....so which is worse?
MS programs install nicely and include all the pieces of other apps that the core app needs, but they all fight over dll versions.
Isn't this similar to the dependancy-hell linux struggles with?
There must be a reason for this since I cannot possibly be the first person to think of this.
So in the end, why cant developers include ALL the dependancies with their source code or rpm?