Linux standards

Thu Jun 20 15:04:40 EDT 2002

Can't we all just get along and use 'xmkmf' ..... cough!

"Jerry Feldman" wrote:
> I think this could be dealt with in a number of ways:
> 1. a standards compliant distro installs things in specific places. 
> 	This appraoch is limited, because it's lack of flexibilty,. What goes i
> nto 
> /use/local vs. /opt vs. /usr/bin.
> 2. The distro provides a mapping file. The package manager would consult 
> the mapping file, which could be an installation override of the above 
> scheme. 
> Other schemes could be used.
> The package manager would also need (as most do today) check dependencies 
> and also previously installed components. This is where standard naming 
> conventions come into play. You also have issues such as when installing a 
> new version, what to do with the old version. Historically, SuSE by default 
> backs up the old one. 
> 
> But, the most serious issue is not in the implementation, but the politics. 
> The Debian people, for instance have been very adamant to accept RPM in 
> place of DEB. Deccies like setld, HP people like swinstall. Lots of very 
> sticky issues. 
> 
> Then you have companies like Installshield that have their own procedures. 
> On 20 Jun 2002 at 12:20, David Kramer wrote:
> > There's a problem with a universal packaging system that works across 
> > distros, and it was touched on at the meeting last night: file locations 
> > and formats.  Different distros put very critical things in different 
> > places.  A universal package manager would have to deal with that.
> >
> --
> Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
> Associate Director
> Boston Linux and Unix user group
> http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
> PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 