On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 06:34:49PM -0800, Xavian-Anderson Macpherson wrote: > > > The one thing that MUST be agreed to by EVERY > > > distribution of linux, is that ALL package names and locations MUST > > > remain as > > > ORIGINALLY INTENDED by the package maintainers, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. > > > > * We have to play the package-naming game if the upstream doesn't know > > about SONAME. > I just tried to find SONAME using man. How can I find out what this is? Will > the LSB eliminate this? What about the new UnitedLinux > distribution. Sonames are a good thing. They are not something that anybody wants to eliminate. > > * If some other distribution uses, say, glibc 2.2 and Debian uses 2.1[1], > > then using the same package name doesn't work. > You are mixing apples and oranges. You are mixing your metaphors. "Apples and oranges" does not mean that you are comparing two things which cannot be compared (despite what a few people seem to think); it expands to "Do not complain about an apple for not being an orange". It means that both things are valid, but different, and neither is "better". > Why are or would you be using the same > name for packages that do not use the same dependencies. Because they are not interchangeable. You cannot replace one with the other and expect it to work; it will break. > Again you missed my > point. If you are using the packages as they come from the supplier, > everyone would have the same packages with the same dependencies. Here again > is my carkit analogy. <snip> This analogy is poor, but you mismatched it anyway. > seatcovers etc. All of the parts that everyone else has in their car should > be the same. Bolts, nuts, wires, wipers, tires, fuses, bulbs etc should > always be the same. These are analogous to the programming language used, and the processor that the code runs on. Nuts and bolts do not, generally speaking, have bugs that mean they need to be fixed. > about to say will upset alot of people. But I just want you to think what > would happen to the global economy if there were companies that specialized > in single or groups of parts. If there were a group of companies that made > only pistons, others making rods, and others making crankshatfs, etc; each > car manufacturer would only have to assemble those parts they wanted for > their cars. This is how it works in the real world. Different companies make the different parts that go into every car. It seems to work pretty well. > All of the engines could be different, while the parts within > them would be the same! And so is this. > manufacturer. But the fact is, they could be interchanged more easily if it > was done from the designers. If car munfacturers used adapters to mount > alternators, starters, fuel and oil pumps, no one would ever have to worry > again about which model of car they had from what year of > production. And your car would be the size of a truck and weigh six tons from all those added adapters, and would have a top speed roughly equal to that of a small snail, since the power:weight ratio is now so poor. And it would *still* only be a two-seater, and whenever you turn a corner you have to get out and push. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpB_psevOZOL.pgp
Description: PGP signature