Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

Ubuntu: The Verdict

<< < (2/9) > >>

ksym:

--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Check this out. If someone took that concept ("package users"), made it more user-friendly, built "package user" packages (possibly listing dependencies etc), and got it working in some distros... It would totally own (nothing could beat it on security, just what we need if/when more viruses become available on GNU/Linux).
I wanted to give it a go myself but I wouldn't know where to start (well... I might...).

Package users!... Absolute genius IMO.
--- End quote ---

No.

That system has no good groundbreaking ideas ...
no good dependency handling, no automation. Bah.

btw that still reverts to some perverted old unix-crap, like
'having to run ldconfig as root'. I've never had problem
creating a package/user spesific ldcaches so forth ...

If you wanna do something really cool, then try to
develop a package-build-system, that
1) works perfectly with other lower level systems like
gnu/autotools, linux kbuild, java ant-build, scons etc ...

2) has a tightly spesified standard, which does not allow
to define multiple versions of same package. all relevant
options, like --march optimisations, should be included
to the package ... maybe by compiling the binaries multiple
times

3) adds USEFUL metainformation to packages, allows
one to totally get rid of direct-dependencies.
Most needed libraries/othercrap would be integrated
to the package ... etc

And so forth etcetera ...

bedouin:
I really don't care about the technical superiority or inferiority of RPMs; all I know is that every distro based on it sent me into the so-called RPM dependency hell.  My past experiences with it void any merits it may have.

apt-get, on the other hand, has worked flawlessly.  Nearly every Linux app that's not niche is included in Debian's package library.  On top of that, I'm running Debian on PPC, a minority platform that usually gets the shaft when it comes to binary packages; the coverage has been equal between PPC and x86 in Debian.

piratePenguin:

--- Quote from: ksym ---No.

That system has no good groundbreaking ideas ...
no good dependency handling, no automation. Bah.
--- End quote ---
That's why I was thinking that a system that uses package users and has this dependency handling etc., would be pretty damn cool.

And the package users idea is ground shattering!

The hint I refered to, was (largely) specific to Linux From Scratch (LFS). It was NOT designed to be automated and have dependency tracking or whatever. A package manager based on those concepts, with automation, dependency tracking, et cetera, would be pretty damn sweet.

Orethrius:
One of the members here had a pretty groundbreaking idea not too long ago in the form of Linux binary packages.  Don't remember if it was Jeff or Stryker though.  :(

ksym:

--- Quote from: Orethrius ---One of the members here had a pretty groundbreaking idea not too long ago in the form of Linux binary packages. Don't remember if it was Jeff or Stryker though. :(
--- End quote ---

How about we make the packages normal ISO -images?
The packages would contain some XML-files, who would define
the sonames and other required interfaces (services, binaries etc) ... and these files would ALSO define the URL:s where
one could download the needed packages. Like bittorrent or
something.

And if an ISV want's to make a retard-proof click'n'pray
application, he would just include ALL the
libraries/binaries that are not defined in LSB.
Then in the target-distro a user could simply click the
ISO, mdm-platform daemon would loop-mount the ISO,
generate a sandbox (with sonames, ldcache, binary assignements
etc) and Run The Damn thing! =)

This idea I got by browsing some developer comments from
the Darwind project. Damn those Apple guys made a
fine job with that Frameworking system.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page