Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: Re: Deficiencies in Debian]
>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 11:43:02 AM, Daryl wrote:
> > i believe the major advantage in making a distinction between a base
> > operating system and the applications it supports lies mostly in the
> > modular design of such a system.
>
> With the strength of the packaging system, however, the modularity is
> maintained by the packaging system, not by the file system.
You speak of different modularity. How does the package manager share
files over the network? For that to work the file systemem has to been
adapted. Maybe someday a new package system will make is possible to on
package level decide if it shuld be shared or not, and then in som
"magial matter make shure that packet gets availible on the clients as
well. I think the filesystem even in that case needs some tweeking.
> In the current system then do not because it all goes in the "base"
> because it was all packaged to go there. It was all integrated to work
> together.
There are a loot of function in the base system that does not need to go
in te base system, an MTA has to be in the base system. Then there are a
loot of other things that should be easyier to share between systems, IN
the example with MTA we on severeal system have /usr/lib/sendmail (the
most commonly used location point to the current MTA
/usr/local/lib/sendmail, that just happens to point to
/opt/sendmail/lib/sendmail, now /opt/sendmail/lib if a link to 8.9.x/lib
and /opt/sendmail to .server/sendmail :^) Works flavlessly in Solaris,
AIX, NetBSD, SunOS and GNU/Linux. (I don't remeber now but maybe
sendmail is in the rdist file that means that the link to
.server/sendmail does not exists on the clients.
> install vim, uninstall nvi and try to run vi. You get vim because of the
> alternates system. ex & view both get moved to vim seamlessly. Now remove
I don't why the alternatives system has to be removed beacue we gets
more flexability. Giving one more level of felxability, one that will
help one of the main problem in Debian, running a large set of simular
hosts. (I personaly like rdist and cachefs (cachefs thou does not exist
yet in Linux))
> Debian, can you really say that what is given now *isn't* very modular and
> easy to have parts added, deleted and moved?
Add a network server maintain tha packages from there....
> especially when you consider that {package} in /opt can be quite a few. I'm
> disgusted with my path on my Solaris box at work. I needed to add
Get better admins :^) The user should be precenter a singe easy step to
intergare all the packages. I does have:
PATH=/home/adm/balp/bin:/home/adm/balp/bin/SunOS-5.6:/usr/gnu/bin:/usr/gnu/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/ccs/bin:/usr/openwin/bin:/usr/ucb:/usr/local/sbin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/games
Yes it's long but that is part of my ovn problem :^) (Wow two /usr/sbin
:^)
> In the Debian manner of things I rarely find that to be the case. Well,
> except for those pestering directories.
And with this small change it would be better for most and you will get
rid ot those too :^) What's there to lose?
/ Balp
Reply to: