#pragma comment (lib, ...)

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-10-11 21:45, H. S. Teoh wrote:

> Yeah, it was one of the things that convinced me to *not* use Redhat. I
> saw a similar thing back in the Bad Old Days of Win98, Win2k, and their
> ilk, where installing a driver would sometimes prompt you something to
> the effect of "this driver needs to install a file that already exists;
> overwrite the file, delete it, or skip it?" None of those options should
> be anything the *user* has to decide, IMO. It essentially amounted to
> "flip a coin and pray the OS won't crash, and if you're *really* lucky
> the driver might actually work". Things like that convinced me *not* to
> use Windows. (I don't know if Windows still does that, as I don't use it
> anyore; but for everyone else's sake I would certainly hope it doesn't!)

Haha.

> Of course, IIRC Redhat has since fixed this broken design, but the
> horrible memory of it stuck. Debian, OTOH, has a depends-on-package
> policy, which results in a much saner system where a package can specify
> a dependency on other packages (with an entire package as a unit),
> optionally with a version constraint, and thus be ensured that it will
> get the correct versions of all related files. That was one of the
> things that convinced me to use Debian. :)

That's how it should work. The smallest unit should be a package.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg