Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 16:53:31 +0200 From: Lutz Albers <lutz@muc.de> To: Matt Behrens <matt@zigg.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SSH2 (in FreeBSD-Questions) Message-ID: <888675398.928601611@ripley.tavari.muc.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906050951080.25971-100000@megaweapon.zigg.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > Yeah, I've heard of it, but didn't get too much farther than looking > at it. It looks interesting, and very well-planned, but I guess > I fail to see the advantage of it over symlinks, especially because > there is a lot of groundwork to cover. Is there something inherently > bad about symlinks? :-) I mean, with the symlink structure, adding > packges is very clean, and removing packages is as easy as rm -rf > /opt/package, and rescanning the symlinks (better yet -- a script > could be easily written up to look for orphaned symlinks, entirely > in an automatic fashion.) The problem with this approach is the fact, that this is a single user oriented concept. Let's assume that two users on your machine are wanting to use gtk-1.0.x and gtk-1.2 simultaniosly. Only one of them could create these symlinks. With modules a user could even use both (in different XTerm windows) without any problems. Cleanup's are also easier: i just need to delete the /opt/package directory and the modulefile (plus additional datafiles). -- Lutz Albers, lutz@muc.de, pgp key available from <http://www.pgp.net>; Do not take life too seriously, you will never get out of it alive. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?888675398.928601611>