People should choose standard that will be mandatory. You can add
your version too,
but this has to exist and be seleceted by default.

Packaging system should be Redhat rpm.
File positioning should be same as in Redhat.

Redhat rpm sux. But there should be standards. Other distros _can
also_ provide packages
in their own formats, but have to provide Redhat rpm first.

Files should be in the same place as in Redhat Linux.

Programers/distributors can add their own package system/file placing
scheme, but
have to adhere to this two rules. They have to provide rpm.

With this two simple rules, you can download any program of the net
and use it your
own distribution.

You can not expect novice users to know or want to learn about
compiling from source.
It has some advantages, but is too much for average beginners. Linux
on desktop is
what linux advocates want, right?

We can call this standard package 1. Later there can be standard
package 2.
It would be better if someone would use better package, but since it
is impossible
to agree which one is better we should start somewhere. Redhat is most
popular Linux
distribution and rpm packages are most widely used. (Debian. It is not
"easy to install"
desktop distro)

With these two rules distros can distribute just main stuff like
kernel, X Window...
You do not have to download and install GIMP, or OPEN OFFICE with
every distro. You can
download it once and use many times with different distros.

One way of solving installing/uninstalling, dependecy problem is
Gobolinux. It has every
program in its own directory.

Using apt get is just solving consequences, not cause of problems.
Besides I might not have (working) modem on that machine.

Linux has so much freedom, but people who are to stubborn to agree on
standards, or
are afraid of changes are holding it back.

BSD people are much more coherent that Linux people.



http://vuks.da.ru/misc

b wrote:

< snip >

Tell that to someone who cares. I don't agree with a single one of your
sentences. Not one
--
Windows was created to keep stupid people away from UNIX."
**--*Tom*Christiansen

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 03:12:09 -0800, b wrote:

De facto standards (tgz, rpm, dpkg) can and should emerge. Developers
may ignore the standards (elrav1); they may make themselves and their
programs look like doofuses, but this is a feature not a bug.

Except for, oops, package dependencies.

In principle, there's nothing preventing someone from developing a GUI
source installer that's basically a front end to "./configure && make
&& make install". For all I know, maybe someone already has.

And how long does it take to download OpenOffice over a 56K modem?

Which violates your "everyone should use Red Hat's directory structure"
suggestion. That said, it's an interesting suggestion, reminiscent of
Mac OS X (as I understand it). Removing a package results in lots of
broken symlinks; they have a general-purpose tool for removing broken
symlinks.

Guess what, though: it doesn't automagically resolve dependency
problems! You still need a system for that.

http://www.gobolinux.org/index.php?l...ge=differences

"we do have a basic dependency tracking system going"

I don't see how any of your suggestions solves the cause of the
problem (i.e. "packages have dependencies"). I don't see how that
problem *could* be solved, except by one of the following:

1) Write a package with no dependencies whatsoever. Madness! You'd
reinvent all sorts of wheels.

2) Distribute all dependencies with your package. Also madness! You'd
have to include a copy of Qt with every single KDE application, and
a copy of GTK with every single Gnome application, and...

No no, the theory of apt get ("find and install whatever dependencies
aren't already installed on this particular system") is perfectly
sound. I don't think I have apt get installed here, but it's basically
just a one-end-user (me) system with light server usage; if it were
doing heavier lifting, then I would certainly go get apt-for-Red-Hat
which I have heard about.

Well, *that* rates about a 9.4 on the Troll-O-Meter [tm]. I'll give
you the benefit of the doubt on the rest of your post, though.

Stnadardizing on RPM won't do any good. The real issue is that there is no
standard to the naming conventions and breakdown. One distribution may
package libkde, another may call the package kdecore4, but have the same
contents -- or have packages with the same name but different contents.

This reaks havoc on the dependency tracking features of package management.
Either naming and packaging conventions should be unambiguously
standardized, or the RPM method should be modified to do file-dependencies
rather than package dependencies.

Further, for RPM to be useful, it really need to have something like urpmi
on top of it.



b wrote:

--
remove .spam from address to reply by e-mail.

On 2004-02-27, b <zika@lova.every1.net> wrote:

Do you think so? Among other things, FreeBSD uses the "ports" system and
puts locally built packages in /usr/local; NetBSD uses "Packages" and put
locally built packages in /usr/pkg.

--

-John (JohnThompson@new.rr.com)

Here in comp.os.linux.misc, zika@lova.every1.net (b) spake unto us, saying:

Who could possibly enforce this, given that almost anyone can create a
distribution of their own?

Yes, which provides some stability/consistency, and that's good from a
server perspective, but the heavily-centralized methodology they use
also hurts them in other ways (such as a lack of drivers, a somewhat
less flexible means of installing the system, etc.).

There's a trade-off involved, I think, and to this point Linux seems to
have created a more desktop-friendly platform (even if it takes someone
time to figure out which particular flavor agrees with them the best).

--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment.
See web site above for resume/CV and background.

"b" <zika@lova.every1.net> wrote in message
news:637db92a.0402270312.37a8e9ea@posting.google.c om

Maybe you should just stop at home.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On 2004-02-27, b <zika@lova.every1.net> wrote:

Why not? If they're not interested, that's fine, but then they'd probably
be happier in Windows anyway. The world's a big enough place to
accommodate all of us.

Why?

--

-John (JohnThompson@new.rr.com)

On 02-27-2004, in comp.os.linux.misc,
Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote:

Appears someone already has. Judging by the screen shots, I suppose
this applies to what you described above?

http://kconfigure.sourceforge.net/

Max

--
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time Windows crashed...
Oh wait a minute, he already does.