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

Re: pros/cons of installing from source

On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 01:22:03PM -0600, Javier Vasquez wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Andrew Sackville-West <andrew@farwestbilliards.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:42:40PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 10:34:27AM -0600, Javier Vasquez wrote:
> >
> >[heavy snippage dude]
> >> >
> >> > You mentioned debian commitment to FSF and its social contract, as
> >> > very good reasons by themselves to run debian.  I totally agree.
> >> > However debian is not the only distro with such commitment.  Actually
> >> > sourceMage picked debian social contract and modified it a bit...
> >> snip...
> >>
> >> I understand Greg's comments to be about Debian's commitment to
> >> enforcing a packaging policy, i.e. a policy on where and how things
> >> are installed. To me is quite a different thing than a social
> >> policy. In Debian, if the install scripts of a package to not put
> >> things where the policy says they should be _that_ is a bug in the
> >> package. It may also be considered a bug in some other distro.s. I've
> >> not kept track of this sort of policy issue in any other distro. since
> >> I discovered Debian.
> >>
> >> The Social Policy is also good. But I think it is easy to feel good
> >> about a Social Policy, and it is hard work to implement a packaging
> >> policy.
> >
> >
> >I think that the packaging policy is what really sets debian
> >apart. THat's why everything "just works"... because dev's can count
> >on things being a certain way and if its not, they can count on it
> >being fixed.
> Hmm, OK, we're changing the original topic now, but it's OK.  I didn't
> want to comment more, but I think there's a confusion here.  On a
> binary distribution you required a packaging policy, since you have
> different package developers, and in order to keep a coherent
> functional and robust system (dependencies, etc), you need to enforce
> a packaging policy.  Debian packaging policy has demonstrated to me by
> far to be the best (personal opinion here), and not now, almost from
> the very beginning.
> However on a source based distribution, there's no different package
> developers, the admin of the system is the developer at the same time,
> and he/she is the one deciding what to compile against (libraries,
> dependencies whether strict or optional, etc).  Furthermore,
> sourceMage, and probably other source based distros also have their
> own packaging policies.  In sourceMage for example the "spells",
> include a section for dependencies, just like in debian, and the
> required dependencies by upstream are included there.  Beyond that
> there are 2 release branches, one stable, and the other testing, plus
> a development environment.  Nothing goes to "stable" if the testing
> community is not satisfied about it.

are there not rules for "make install" that determine where things go?
and what about standardization of config files and their locations? I
think that a lot of the policy can be applied to source distributions
just like a binary one. Its, of course, fairly easy as the end user to
change things in a source based distro


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: