[LAU] which lau distro is more commandline friendly?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:27:43 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 12:50:04 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
>>On 22/12/15 at 12:24pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:  
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:39:32 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote:    
>>> >On 22/12/15 at 10:56am, Ralf Mardorf wrote:    
>>> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:31:58 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote:      
>>> >> >"commandline friendly" is totally meaningless        
>>> >> 
>>> >> No it isn't, depending to the user's needs, the kind of used
>>> >> distro has impact. If a user e.g. wants to use command line
>>> >> mainly to compile software that isn't availbale by the
>>> >> repositories for the packages, then it makes a difference if a
>>> >> user e.g. chose a long term support release distro or a distro
>>> >> that often provide releases or a rolling release.
>>> >>       
>>> >
>>> >Distro are not "long term release", as the phrase says, releases
>>> >are long term support or not.
>>> >Releases and distros have nothing to do with the whole point at
>>> >all, apples and oranges. Repost can be added and source code is
>>> >available, if someone can't manage with repos and source code the
>>> >problem is not the cli he is going to use... but the user itself.
>>> >
>>> >You can happily use bash, zsh, korn or whatever shell you like on
>>> >your distro and compiling has nothing to do with the one you
>>> >choose.    
>>> 
>>> Please care about the OP's request.
>>> 
>>> Users could run into dependency hell when compiling from
>>> up-to-date upstream sources, if the distro is meant to provide a
>>> steady work-flow by a long term support release. An Ubuntu LTS, let
>>> alone special business distros, do not provide up-to-date libraries.
>>> If the main reason to use command line is to compile software, then
>>> it's wise to chose a distro that is close to upstream. This is just
>>> one example why "command line friendly" isn't a bad phrase, if you
>>> care about a context.
>>>     
>>AGain, you are completely missing the "long term support" thing and
>>mixing apples and oranges, LTS are freezed in terms of new features
>>upgrades. On the opposite a non LTS release is not freezed so
>>dependencies are kept up-to-date.  
>
>That's why in this context (compiling from upstream) using command line
>is more user-friendly when not using a LTS release.

Another thing to consider.

Assumed upstream mentions that "jackd2" is required to compile the
software.

On some distro you just need to have jack2 installed, e.g.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/jack2/files/

On other distros the software is split to packages, e.g.
http://packages.ubuntu.com/wily/amd64/jackd2/filelist
some other jackd packages are hard dependencies, that are automatically
installed, but non does provide the headers, they are provided by a
package you manually need to install or that require using a tool to
automatically install the headers, auto-apt, apt-get build-dep ...
http://packages.ubuntu.com/wily/amd64/libjack-jackd2-dev/filelist
So some users might consider this as less user-friendly.

Upstream unlikely will mention that you need libjack-jackd2-dev.

I do not rate the different approaches, I just inform that the OP
perhaps should consider what for the OP is more user-friendly.

Regards,
Ralf