Re: Some thoughts for Debian.
Matt Kracht <mattk@thepoint.net> wrote:
>have no idea whose idea it was split every library into two (or more!)
>packages, either.
As a developer, this can, I suppose, be a little annoying. The whole
point is that if you, a _user_ (note the emphasis) require a shared
library to _run_ a program, you shouldn't be obliged to obtain all the
static linking libraries, header files, etc. to go with it. Those things
would only be needed by those compiling programs.
libelf0, which I maintain, is a fairly small package. libelf0-dev has
an 800 kilobyte .a file (plus headers, and a few other things). Do you
really think users, who _only want to run software_, would thank me if
I put that file, which would never be used, into libelf0? And that's
not an isolated example, either... you can find similar cases with
libc.
>all required. Then I find out that the guy who compiled it did something
>weird. Lynx 2.6 doesn't compile with it. So, I go to the S-LANG home
>page and get the real source and compile it. Lynx compiles fine. Why
>was I recompiling Lynx? Because the guy who compiled that screwed it
>up! My God, I've recompiled half the Debian packages, it seems like.
So report bugs. It takes only a little amount of your time compared to
recompiling, and the result is a set of packages better suited to your,
and hopefully other people's, needs. What's more, upgrading programs
compiled as a Debian package is a helluva lot more easy than upgrading
programs installed by hand - there were programs on my old Slackware
system that had long since been gone, but still had configuration
files, and other things like that, floating around in odd spots - solely
because I didn't know where to look for them. Debian, and RedHat, take
the pain out of upgrades in that respect.. and Debian's package
management system is more advanced in severals respect than RedHat's.
>I don't know. Maybe I'm just not in the correct mindset for Debian. I
>like to run the latest stuff. Debian offers, it seems, only the oldest,
>most stable software.
Hardly the oldest.. but yes, one of the aims is stability. Running the
latest stuff, as somebody else pointed out, is a recipe for disaster on
a system being run as part of an ISP, or a commercial situation. In those
situations, you _WANT_ the most stable software you can _GET_ - if you're
constantly rebooting, expensive hardware is not being utilised effectively.
> I just don't see why anyone would run Linux and
>not want to compile software, be on bleeding edge, and actually
>administer a UNIX system... I feel like I'm running Windows 95.
Compile software: it takes time. Have you tried compiling X? I have; in
fact, I am under a certain _obligation_ to do so, since I'm supposed to
test as many alpha servers as I can for the XFree86 project. If a make
World gets done overnight, it's a pretty good job - admittedly on a
relatively slow system, but it illustrates the point.
Keith Lewis, a sysadmin here at Monash, used to compile every program
installed on the mainstream machines. This took up his _entire_ morning,
as he transferred sources for requested software, compiled it, and
installed it. Now he accepts compiled binaries, making notes of who
compiled what - it takes up much less time when he could be fixing more
serious problems.
Be on bleeding edge: if the bleeding edge falls over, what do you do?
At home, on a hobby machine, it's not a problem; in a workplace
environment, it is _totally_ unacceptable. (workplace environment, in
this case, also refers to home computers being used for work.) If it
ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT. (that's the philosophy for work computers, of
course :)
Administer a UNIX system: yes, but the above two mentioned things are not
related to this argument.
>Unconfigurable software with horrid defaults, plain bad planning,
>changing industry standards without notice, etc.
Unconfigurable? Get your hands dirty, and look under /etc sometime.
Changing industry standards? Enlighten me - how does Debian do this?
(No sarcasm, I'm genuinely interested.) Bad planning? On occasion,
guilty as charged; feel free to volunteer to help us with this. That's
where Debian comes from: the work of volunteers. Yes, at times, our act
is not brilliant; but from what I've seen, Debian has managed to get a
lot more right than wrong.
Off topic, but slightly related: I'd like, at this point, to sing the
praises of Bruce Perens. He's done a magnificent job, against a lot of
flack from several developers (when they disagreed, and those who agreed
with him kept quiet :). My hat goes off to him.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: