Re: debian

On 2006-04-22, Moe Trin <ibuprofin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.linux, in article
<4atr48Fub9ioU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, J.O. Aho wrote:

Moe Trin wrote:

Extremely simple. Binary packages should be compiled for the specific
distribution/release that the user has. A package built for one distribution
often will not work in others. Given that distrowatch has hundreds of
different and not always compatible distributions, do you expect the author
of software on freshmeat.net to provide versions for all distributions?

In way they do, they provide the source code, just use the gcc and you get a
binary compiled for your distro.

Which works fine - but leaves the distribution's package manager non the wiser.

In Debian it goes in /usr/local/ and the package manager is 'trained' to
ignore that directory.


Most package managers do not look for the file that is required, but
consult a database of what packages are installed.

The configure script does look for things the build needs to build and should
give you an error message which leads you to get what is missing.

That's great - but the package manager doesn't know that you installed the
tarball of <$WHAT-EVER> that would satisfy the requirements of _other_
packages you later chose to install. Example - your distribution came with
version 1.2.2 of KDE. You looked on sourceforge, or freshmeat, or the
developers site, and you got a tarball of version 1.3.1, and installed
that. Now, you want to install kmumblefritz-1.3.1 - and you found a package
that your package manage can install - except it won't because you don't have
kde-1.3.x installed... see the problem? And that's even assuming that files
from a tarball and package manager even wind up in the same directory (they
won't - see the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard at http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
without crapping on other dependencies. Both POSIX and Linux Standard Base
(http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/) try to make sense out of the hash, but
every @$(#$^**! distributor thinks they know better, and interprets
things differently.

One does get into a spiral that can finally negate the benefits of
'standards' with a particular distribution.


IMHO knowing how to use configure should be somethign everyone should know.

./configure ? Sure - just as you should know something about how to use
make and a five minute lecture of what is in a Makefile. But as these are
used by everyone when they build their own source, few authors do things
absolutely consistently - there's the first of the problems. The second
problem is learning about how their distribution's package manager works -
whether it's apt, emerge, pkgtool, rpm or some distributor's so-called
"improved" version of someone else's application. A lot could be saved by
making it easy for ordinary people to take a source tarball, and make that
into a package that is compatible with their distribution's package manager.
'alien' sorta did something like that, but the bewildering maze of libraries,
and what-not, is not as simple as the 'a.out' days. Heck, I have been
using rpm since Red Hat 2.0, and rpp before that, and I still have no
desire to make up a 'src.rpm' that I can build into a binary.

Dependencies. Your 'alien' idea is a good 'ideal' choice but the
interdependencies make it too difficult to accomplish automatically with a
package manager (except in a very limited way. The Debian idea of just
leaving /usr/local/ alone seems to be the most benign I've seen.

I don't want to work out source packages either.

Old guy
'gettin' there' :)

--
I'm lazy and I want to play with the computer, not play with the packages
that let me play with the computer.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is there a UNIX standard for where to install local tools?
    ... tracking or dependency database. ... install them manually or install all without looking if he wants them. ... library and I did even prepare PAM package for Slackware. ... Too much scripting in any distribution tends to get in my way. ...
    (comp.unix.shell)
  • Re: gnome 2.4 installs????
    ... >> sort of distribution package that I could ... >> install on RH9. ... Packaging for a distro is precisely what a distro ...
    (linux.redhat.misc)
  • Re: Xine installation help
    ... If I want to install a piece of software on windows, ... comes as an MSI package - even if the package itself is contained in ... another piece of software to install it - the package manager. ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: Complete Linux Newbie here.
    ... > format it's hard drive and install Linux. ... A package is simply that, ... Debian has a similar package for its distribution. ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: package managers [was: FatELF patches...]
    ... It interferred with my will to install the version of the software that I ... package management system. ... The package manager, on the other hand, knows about ... I compile mplayer directly from the subversion repository - ...
    (Linux-Kernel)