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

Re: About standards Was: Re: Debian Installer 7.0 Beta4 release

>> There is Linux Standard Base which claim to be a standard for distros.
> Which reminds me of the file system hierarchy issue, on my multi-boot
> I've got Linux were e.g. /media is
> /media/directory
> /media/username/directory
> /run/media/username/directory
I can not really see the point of having such various schemes...

> for Ubuntu it's not bash.
People can use other things than bash, I do not see the problem. And I
think that someday I'll try zsh or csh. When I'll have the time :D

>> They claim that rpm should be the standard, among other things.
>> I do not know the difference between rpm and deb, so maybe they could be
>>  merged
> We've got "alien" to convert, but this easily can fail. Instead of disto
> specific ways to build a package often "checkinstall" (instead of "make
> install") can build a package for RPM and DEB based distros.
About alien... well, when even .deb are not compatible between themselves,
how the hell do you want to have a secure way to port .rpm on .deb based
To do the packaging stuff from source, there is also cmake, if
dependencies for the target distro are registered. My personal choice at
home, just, I'm sad to see it depends on emacsen.

>> is far easier for software developers than dealing with every distro
>> packaging systems
> Have you ever tried checkinstall?
No, I do not even know what is it. I'll take a look at it.

>> This last reason is also the one which makes me thinking about moving
>> to gentoo
> I like Arch Linux's "pacman" the best. Building packages for Arch is
> idiot prove.
> For Debian among other ways it's possible to build a new package by
> using older package information, e.g.
The problem is to create the older package informations, and that, for
each distro.

>> For example, I use no printers on my machines, but I have some cups
>> dependencies. I understand that debian try to meet everyone's needs, so
>> I
>> usually do not whine about that.
> That upstream does force a desktop environment to hard depend to e.g.
> systemd is insane and we get more and more of those insane dependencies.
I am fairly new to Debian so I do not know what will happen, but the more
useless dependencies I will have to install to make my system running, the
more chance there is that I will go on another distro quickly.

>> gentoo is running a home-made kernel
> I'm doing this by scripts, for Debian and Ubuntu I "dirty" rewrite this
> script:
> [...]
> However, for other distros this won't work ;), but as you can see, you
> don't need knowledge to build a kernel and it's easy to remove the dirty
> arts from this script.
The knowledge I need to build the kernel, is about modules I need or not ;)
If I had this knowledge, just using "$make menuconfig" (or any other
choice) would be very fine.
But thanks for the script, I'll look at it later.

>> KDE and Gnome did Freedesktop.org, which is not a real standard, and
>> even do not claim to be such, but is the way to go in my humble opinion.
>>  An example of what I like they did is "~/.config/" which is far better
>>  than the usual way to just put everything in hidden folders/files in
>> $HOME. Btw, I hate that crappy way!
> And I like the hidden files, but hate not to know what exactly is
> "active" in .config, .local etc. or .cache.
> If I edit a config I don't want that it's ignored, but used from the
> cache instead.
I do not understand what you mean by "disabled" ? And how the location of
a file can avoid it to be in the cache?
If softwares put things in .cache, it is not necessarily configuration
options. Such "feature" would be, imho, a stupid choice (and I have not
seen it for now)

But I think the better is to let the user the choice of where the config
should go, the freedesktop.org recommendations are to read a system
variable to determine that, and it is also possible to first check
~/.my_soft and if it does not exists, check in ~/.config/my_soft. (This is
what I do with my current project)

>> So you can not really say that KDE is so polemic ;)
> KDE and GNOME are bloated.

I guess some people think that they are useful as they are. I disagree
with them, but I do not think my opinion is the only one which should rule
the world :D

>> and people can even just install a window manager,
> You can simply use a WM. Some of them, e.g. Ion are tiling and tabbing
window managers.
As I said ;) (my personal choice is for i3-wm)

> Yes Windows isn't a good system, but it's not that bad as many people
I would not say that. For many people it is easier to use and so good enough.
I guess my words were not clear enough. What I meant was: on some other
system, you can not change every component. On debian, you are close to be
able to do so.
I apologize for the bad wording.

> They all have advantages and drawbacks.
Agree. Just like all OSes.

Reply to: