Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- From: Andrew Sackville-West <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:34:40 -0700
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 01:22:03PM -0600, Javier Vasquez wrote:
On 5/4/07, Andrew Sackville-West <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:42:40PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 10:34:27AM -0600, Javier Vasquez wrote:
[heavy snippage dude]
snip...
You mentioned debian commitment to FSF and its social contract, as
very good reasons by themselves to run debian. I totally agree.
However debian is not the only distro with such commitment. Actually
sourceMage picked debian social contract and modified it a bit...
I understand Greg's comments to be about Debian's commitment to
enforcing a packaging policy, i.e. a policy on where and how things
are installed. To me is quite a different thing than a social
policy. In Debian, if the install scripts of a package to not put
things where the policy says they should be _that_ is a bug in the
package. It may also be considered a bug in some other distro.s. I've
not kept track of this sort of policy issue in any other distro. since
I discovered Debian.
The Social Policy is also good. But I think it is easy to feel good
about a Social Policy, and it is hard work to implement a packaging
policy.
I think that the packaging policy is what really sets debian
apart. THat's why everything "just works"... because dev's can count
on things being a certain way and if its not, they can count on it
being fixed.
Hmm, OK, we're changing the original topic now, but it's OK. I didn't
want to comment more, but I think there's a confusion here. On a
binary distribution you required a packaging policy, since you have
different package developers, and in order to keep a coherent
functional and robust system (dependencies, etc), you need to enforce
a packaging policy. Debian packaging policy has demonstrated to me by
far to be the best (personal opinion here), and not now, almost from
the very beginning.
However on a source based distribution, there's no different package
developers, the admin of the system is the developer at the same time,
and he/she is the one deciding what to compile against (libraries,
dependencies whether strict or optional, etc). Furthermore,
sourceMage, and probably other source based distros also have their
own packaging policies. In sourceMage for example the "spells",
include a section for dependencies, just like in debian, and the
required dependencies by upstream are included there. Beyond that
there are 2 release branches, one stable, and the other testing, plus
a development environment. Nothing goes to "stable" if the testing
community is not satisfied about it.
are there not rules for "make install" that determine where things go?
and what about standardization of config files and their locations? I
think that a lot of the policy can be applied to source distributions
just like a binary one. Its, of course, fairly easy as the end user to
change things in a source based distro
A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- References:
- Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- From: Joe Hart
- Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- From: Daniel Palmer
- Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- From: Javier Vasquez
- Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- From: Greg Folkert
- Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- From: Javier Vasquez
- Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- From: Greg Folkert
- Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- From: Javier Vasquez
- Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- From: Paul E Condon
- Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- From: Andrew Sackville-West
- Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- From: Javier Vasquez
- Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- Prev by Date: Re: private LAN ldap (was Re: Bookmarks across browsers)
- Next by Date: Re: Sid and Xorg
- Previous by thread: Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- Next by thread: Re: pros/cons of installing from source
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
