Talk:Dependency hell

message: Come on, is there anyone who really considers the Windows Add/Remove Programs Control a package manager? I think it shouldn't be listed as such. --Unsound 02:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm removing it now. --Crashie 20:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Add/Remove Programs Control a package manager? 

message: Ever had your system broken because of weird unknown errors of missing libs or components in the middle of an emerge? Or ever had a crash in the middle of an apt-get upgrade? Ever used rpm? Ever had all hell break loose because of an soname change? (e.g. my horrible experience with libexapt.so.1 and Gentoo which a lot of people experienced). Well I think we need a section for those as well.
:You "demand"? That's a good way to make people ignore you. -- intgr [talk] 09:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unless I'm mistaken, this article pretty much IS for Unix and *n?xes in the first place - every other popular system got their own article - and just about everything else is written Unix-centric (library names, version number explanations, etc.). -- Keilaron (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You should have run revdep-rebuild  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.28.30 (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  As an ex-user of GNU/Linux I demand one for Linux distros 

message: In some distros, you need  install new packages to configure Internet access, but you need Internet access to download the packages. This is a circular hell.--Mac (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet access hell 

message: 'DLL Hell' isn't an example of a 'Dependency Hell'.. it's one of naming conflicts.  Namely, DLLs in Windows are located and bound based on their filenames along a list of pathnames, and that they don't allow for multiple versions to easily coexist.  'Extension conflicts' and 'JAR Hell' are similar problems.  "Dependency Hell" can only very loosely describe these because they're problems that appear when attempting to bind to 'dependent' modules at runtime... but it's not the dependency per se that is a source of the problem.  I think this entire article needs a deeper review to better clarify what "Dependecy Hell" is all about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.186.96 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Examples of Dependency Hell 

message: There seems to be some mild vandalism in the 'conflicting dependencies' subheading of 'Problems'.  I don't think the phrase "pwnage" is really of the standard of Wikipedia.  However, I agree that it is an apt description of the problem, and so I won't be the one to delete it.  My computer said love (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mild vandalism 

message: Does anyone know enough about the PC-BSD PBI package management system that prevents dependency hell (see: PC-BSD#Package_management)?  Could we add this to the article?  TurboForce (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody else has added anything about this for over a month, so I will mention PC-BSD package management in the page, then other editors can add more to it. TurboForce (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC-BSD mention 

message: The Gecko Runtime Environment and the software that depends on it is, as the article itself points out, a poor example of dependency hell because it is solved by bundling the GRE with every iteration. Dependency Hell is an instance where precisely this workaround cannot happen for one reason or another, otherwise it would be better described as Dependency Hiccup or somesuch.
Since the point of any example is to make the concept clearer, not muddy the waters through convoluted explanation of the details OR offer a counter-factual, I suggest this particular section be eliminated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.69.215 (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The claims in the section has been marked as CN since august. Given the dubious nature and your point I have removed the section. Thanks. Useerup (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Example in Examples section 

message: This article is somewhere between the pessimistic and the pejorative. Dependencies exist, sometimes (and lately it's more often than not) there's nothing "hellish" about it. The Apache Ivy article has a redlink as both dependency manager and library dependency.  That ought to be a blue wl, as it's necessary for explaining the need for Ivy. It shouldn't link here, as this article suggests that it's all entirely negative. Is there anything better, and less judgemental? Viam Ferream (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there an article on dependencies in general? 

message: compile the dependency statically, remove the dependency :p  Divinity76 (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  another soltuion 

message: The "Package Manager Dependencies" section is currently one long, long, sentence, which I cannot parse or understand. It needs an overhaul. Perhaps it is missing some of the text?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.131.49 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. That was pretty special.  I've deleted it as the content here was absolutely unreadable, the reference supporting it was little better and there's no clear indication that package managers like yum or apt bring in any new sort of dependency hell, above what was already there manually. Viam Ferream (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

text: It's just blogspam and already keeps coming back. Viam Ferream (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with your edits, but your edit summaries could use improvement. Rather than attacking people with "Blog spamming. Learn to write something vaguely comprehensible before spamming it here.", you could explain that most blogs are not reliable sources and if they think they have a relevant point, they could explain it in more length on the talk page. In most cases they won't bother, but it can be helpful to avoid edit wars. -- intgr [talk] 11:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spamming a blog is still spamming. This is barely literate and of zero value here. It just doesn't belong. Are you going to start hiding all my edits on this page too? Viam Ferream (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Package Manager Dependencies 

message: I have an issue with the text in parenthesis in this phrase:
"A problem on Linux systems with installing packages from a different distributor (which is not recommended or even supposed to work)..."
Given the Linux file structure specifications of what /usr and /opt are intended for, surely it can't be said that installing packages from a different distributor is not supposed to work. --Varybit (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd party distributors 

message: Dependency Hell in Law Domain affecting final License terms,
or preventing of estabilishing Final License terms, producing software / hardware unlicensed.
I would like to see such See also Link, that would explaind dependency hell in Law Domain. 79.187.34.81 (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing Law Domain 

message: The introduction says "Dependency hell is a colloquial term for the frustration of some software users..."
But dependency hell is much more than just a "frustration" of "some users". It happens very often in for more complex software configurations where flexible version numbering is allowed. Often these flexible bounds are also incorrect, eg a dependency may require "version>=2.3.0" but it never considered that incompatible revision 3 would appear. 
In the worst case, dependency hell causes software to break completely, resulting in crashes, or failure to install the software. And it can also cause automatic software installers to get into an infinite loop, causing the system to hang on the install or upgrade.
I suggest making the introduction much more serious than it is. 131.180.250.27 (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction