Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
Ubuntu: The Verdict
piratePenguin:
I think there should be ONE repository storing packages (not deps or rpms, something designed specifically for this purpose with a name like "universal package") that contain the original source code for the package and some patches (INSIDE the "universal package" (like in a "/patches/" directory), at least for the more important patches) required to make the code compile cleanly under whatever circumstances, or add some important funcionality, or fix bugs. Then the distributors could WORK TOGETHER to keep this repository UP TO DATE, and release their own experimental patches that, once tested (by the distribution users, and by users of other distributions. Probably have a part of the repository house the expirimental patches.) and deemed secure and stable enough, get added as a patch to the "universal package".
ANYBODY could download a "universal package" straight from the repository, compile it and install it easily (using frontends, perhaps something like synaptic, and it could ask the user which patches to apply) on ANY distribution.
The distributors could even compile the "universal packages" for their users, and package them in RPM or DEP format and put them into their own repository. They would still gain from faster bug and security fixes. The only thing that would be missing is the users control over which patches are in use (which might cause issues for users of certain (noob) distributions). But it would have it's benefits.
Other operating systems (not just distributions) could also take advantage of this large repository of software, particularly GNU/Hurd, *BSD, and some more (probably). Just like the GNU/Linux distributions, they could provide their own patches (experimental or otherwise) to make the package work on that OS.
The authors of the software, of course, could take patches from the repository and apply them for the next release.
ksym:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I think there should be ONE repository storing packages (not deps or rpms, something designed specifically for this purpose with a name like "universal package") that contain the original source code for the package and some patches (INSIDE the "universal package" (like in a "/patches/" directory), at least for the more important patches) required to make the code compile cleanly under whatever circumstances, or add some important funcionality, or fix bugs. Then the distributors could WORK TOGETHER to keep this repository UP TO DATE, and release their own experimental patches that, once tested (by the distribution users, and by users of other distributions. Probably have a part of the repository house the expirimental patches.) and deemed secure and stable enough, get added as a patch to the "universal package".
ANYBODY could download a "universal package" straight from the repository, compile it and install it easily (using frontends, perhaps something like synaptic, and it could ask the user which patches to apply) on ANY distribution.
The distributors could even compile the "universal packages" for their users, and package them in RPM or DEP format and put them into their own repository. They would still gain from faster bug and security fixes. The only thing that would be missing is the users control over which patches are in use (which might cause issues for users of certain (noob) distributions). But it would have it's benefits.
Other operating systems (not just distributions) could also take advantage of this large repository of software, particularly GNU/Hurd, *BSD, and some more (probably). Just like the GNU/Linux distributions, they could provide their own patches (experimental or otherwise) to make the package work on that OS.
The authors of the software, of course, could take patches from the repository and apply them for the next release.
--- End quote ---
HAHA! OLD!
There is nothing new in this idea ... tho this is quite good.
Heard of Gentoo GNU/Linux anyone?
I used that about a year, and it had all of the idea's above.
It was a decent distro, but started sucking cock later on ...
Installing software bloated my HD with development
headers, and there was NO mechanism to do reverse-dependencies,
eg. I could not easily remove an already installed package.
I'm back to Debian.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: ksym ---Heard of Gentoo GNU/Linux anyone?
--- End quote ---
Yes.
--- Quote from: ksym ---I used that about a year, and it had all of the idea's above.
--- End quote ---
Yes but Gentoo have their repository, Debian have theirs, Mandriva has theirs... It's all fucked up. If you read the first sentence properly:
--- Quote from: me ---I think there should be ONE repository
--- End quote ---
I've never used Gentoo, though I might try it after this. I've started looking at FreeBSD, and it's package management is pretty similar (and very fecking good).
If this "ONE" repository existed and the distributors took it seriously, I see no reason that the FreeBSD guys couldn't contribute to it too... They get mostly the same bugs and security advisories as us (take a look).
worker201:
Can't help but notice that this is a form of computer fascism. Consolidating and centralizing power/packages leads to dependence and inefficiency. Overall, Linux is not developed this way, and the community will resist your attempts to steer it toward some sort of homogenization. The "do what you like" marketing theory has been put to the test, and actually seems to produce quality products. If you start making everybody do the same thing, that's Microsoftism.
The beautiful thing about standards is that there are so many of them!
ksym:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---If this "ONE" repository existed and the distributors took it seriously, I see no reason that the FreeBSD guys couldn't contribute to it too... They get mostly the same bugs and security advisories as us (take a look).
--- End quote ---
That is not possible.
You see, every Linux-distro has it's own base-system.
Each piece of software is uniquely tailored for
this base-system, statically --prefixed under /usr or /opt.
Each systems has it's own scheme on dealing with
soname dependencies, command-namespace dependencies and
package upgrading.
What this come's down to, is that a centralized repository
would need the distros' using it to be of the same
base-system-schema. And if that would be so, then they
would be, actually, ONE AND THE SAME SYSTEM ;D
AND we would have to brainwash EVERY fucking OSS-hacker
to believe into our "one-and-the-only" base-system
in order to make em port their software to our
Nazi-Linux.
The idea is good, but it just would not work.
Like I said earlier, in order to make OSS scene co-operate,
you would have to be GOD, and throw all nay-sayers
to burning hells. Got it?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version