Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Dan Luu 11. pro
Huh. I guess this is why it was so much work to maintain a working Octopress/Jekyll install back when I used Octopress (speaking as a non-Ruby dev who didn't maintain a Ruby dev environment and relied on system packages as much as possible)?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Dan Luu 11. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @danluu
I would regularly try to publish a post or even just fix a typo only to find that I had to install a bunch of packages, override environment variables, etc., to get around what were effectively compiler or linker errors (not that people call them that in a dynamic language).
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Dan Luu
To be clear, unlike that commenter, I appreciate packaging work since it often lets me run binaries with little work on my part (in another thread, quoted OP says distro packagers are useless), but I thought it was interesting to see why using Jekyll was so high overhead for me.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
kamikaze🇬🇧 11. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @danluu
ruby@freebsd.org does a great job. Sometimes there are issues like this when upstream introduces new dependencies. But these are rare and addressed quickly. So maybe run ?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Dan Luu 11. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @lonkamikaze_en
I'm occasionally tempted by a BSD for a variety of reasons, but I don't think I want to run a BSD at home while I use Linux at work and I think it's pretty unlikely I'll end up in a BSD shop in the near future. Maybe after I retire :-).
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Patrick McGuire 11. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @danluu
The Debian style packagers do slice the salami much thinner than most
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"