[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: Re: Deficiencies in Debian]

>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
 >     What advantages would those be?  I am curious.

One more lever of easy controll, if you loose the packages files you may
still get a clue, you could still save the system.

The second great advanteage of a separate /usr with a small bas system
ans a greater /usr/local or /opt or /what/ever/better is that that way
it's a loot easyer to share the /what/ever/part between several systems,
only one of them needs to keep track of what installed. (I could easy
think os situations where aloot of hosts with a small localdisk could be
used as hosts and one central host having most of the software should
ony have to be uppdated with the new packages. This would make automated
installations much easyer til maintain. (One couls also think os a rdist
system for these parts (which I wouldn't thrust to /usr)

 > in a separate (usr/local, /opt) tree.  In this way, he could just wipe the
 > "base" OS, reinstall, be done with it.

I.m.h.o. a there is a small need for that...

 >     The Debian model, however, doesn't have the SysAdmin compiling a ton of
 > different things.  What few things that admin compiles can rightfully go int

That is no need to do in a different system, the main problem with the
Debian way is that it's gets harder to do small changed in the compile
time options of the packages. As i looked the *BSD way here has some
advantanges, it's much easier to select what you like to do.

 > touched by the package manager.  /opt, IMHO, should be soft-linked to
 > /usr/local and forgotten, but that is just my opinion.  :)

I perosnaly thing tha other way around is better :^) in /usr/loacl/bin i
link to /opt/package/bin (and /opt/package/bin is linked to
/opt/package/version/bin) that is a loot more flexible that only
drawback ir Sun having put all there software in /opt so a better name
is needed.)

 > at a minimal level of functionality.  That is what the "base" packages are.
 > "Base" OS, in the Debian model and from my perspective, is anything installed
 > by the package manager.

Yes but only half way, Base is also the name of the firt essasian system
that gets install during the boot proces, i.e. the minal syste, you may
"survive" on.

 >     That is why I ask what advantages you see?  I've had this debate with a
 > friend of mine off and on for months.  He hasn't come up with anything that

My optins are based on experience and the running of a large hetrogeros
machine park.

/ Balp

Reply to: