Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Packaging LSB packages - a first glimpse

Filed under
Misc

In my opinion the current software-packaging/software-install system for Linux systems is a crappy thing:

Every distribution packages the most interesting and important packages for itself: KDE stuff, GNOME, compiler, apache, and add on packages like firefox. Therefore, each work is repeated not only twice but dozens of times. For Suse, for Fedora Core, for Ark Linux, for Debian, for Ubuntu, and so on. And the packages are usually not compatible between the different distributions.

This is dumb - I must know it because I’m part of the game (I package ktorrent and rsibreak for Fedora Core).

The reasons behind this is well known: there was no standard at the beginning, and therefore everyone did it his/her own way. These ways were different sometimes, depending on the roots of the packager. The result is as already mentioned: duplicate work (ha, if only, multiplicate work is closer to the truth), incompatibility - and the worst result is that software for Linux is usually released as the source code only, without any chance for an average computer user to install it.

Full Story.

Dumb, dumb, dumb

Fortunately, Mandriva lets me use OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird straight from OpenOffice.org and the Mozilla Foundation.

Why Mandi and other distros find it necessary to make a mess of such good software by cobbling together their own versions has always baffled me. Especially when their operating systems (surely their raison d'etre) are in such dire need of repair. Wouldn't that be a better way to spend their resources?

Why can't I readily install exactly the same software on one distro as I install on another?

An OS gem

It's not really a problem.

With things like Autopackage available it shouldn't be a problem for vendors to package non critical applications like the ones you mentioned. System critical applications from the repository, games and other software from Loki installers, Bitrock and Autopackage. It's not the distibutors that's the problem, it's the vendors not paying attention.

The original point

The original point, I thought, was that the distros are all working on basically the same software.

Only it isn't exactly the same because they mess around with it to make it comply with the idiosyncrasies they've decided to use in their OS (like piling everything up in /usr/lib).

And it isn't compatible with the "same" software on another distro because it's idiosyncratic and because they've decided in their muleheadedness that they can make OpenOffice better than OpenOffice.org or Firefox better than the Mozilla Foundation.

An example. I installed the (then) latest version of Thunderbird on my newly installed Fedora 5 but couldn't run it because a C++ library (.so.5) wasn't installed or even included in the DVD sized FC installer. Instead they had .so.4.x, upgradeable to .so.4.x+ and .so.6 somewhere or other.

So, I had to go to the Fedora forum to find out what jiggery-pokery was required; I got the info but, also, lectures about installing software ONLY from the repositories and how dare I, as a newbie, question the wise judgment of the wizards at FC and the wizards on the FC forum? Jeepers, creepers. There was I thinking that the purpose of an OS was to enable a person to run apps.

For seekers only

But the truth is.

I shall only comment on the /usr/lib issue as it's called, following standards.
The same story goes for other Unices and clones. Some follow them as they should, some invent their own variants. Personally I don't like Fedora, actually I hated everything since Redhat 8.0 as it became so flawed.

Let's hope for a decent option

Sooner or later, I suppose, only the strong will survive and standards will apply. I just hope Ubuntu, Fedora and SuSE are not the only options. I dislike all of them.

I did not realise there is a "/usr/lib issue".

For seekers only

Filesystem Hierarchy Standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FHS

Take a look into our world and you will understand how things work.

Filesystem Hierarchy Standard

All good stuff, I'm sure. Like the LSB and the Portland project and I forget the other names. I'm all in favour of common standards and hope the day arrives.

From your link:

Quote:
Still, the vast majority of the Linux distributions, including those developed by members of the Free Standards Group, do not follow this proposed standard.

Isn't that the point?

For seekers only

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

today's howtos

Linux 4.15, Linux 4.16, and Linux Foundation's CNCF and CII

  • Linux 4.15 Gets Fixed To Report Current CPU Frequency Via /proc/cpuinfo
    A change recently in the Linux kernel led the CPU MHz reported value via /proc/cpuinfo to either be the nominal CPU frequency or the most recently requested frequency. This behavior changed compared to pre-4.13 kernels while now it's been fixed up to report the current CPU frequency.
  • Linux 4.16 Will Be Another Big Cycle For Intel's DRM Driver
    We are just through week one of two for the Linux 4.15 merge window followed by eight or so weeks after that before this next kernel is officially released. But Intel's open-source driver developers have already begun building up a growing stack of changes for Linux 4.16 when it comes to their DRM graphics driver.
  • CNCF Wants You to Use 'Certified Kubernetes'
  • Open Source Threat Modeling
    Application threat modeling is a structured approach to identifying ways that an adversary might try to attack an application and then designing mitigations to prevent, detect or reduce the impact of those attacks. The description of an application’s threat model is identified as one of the criteria for the Linux CII Best Practises Silver badge.

Linux World Domination and Microsoft Corruption in Munich

Programming/Development: 'DevOps', NumPy, Google SLING

  • 5 DevOps leadership priorities in 2018
    This week, DevOps professionals gathered in San Francisco to talk about the state of DevOps in the enterprise. At 1,400 attendees, the sold-out DevOps Enterprise Summit has doubled in size since 2014 – a testament to the growth of the DevOps movement itself. With an ear to this event and an eye on the explosion of tweets coming out of it, here are five key priorities we think IT leaders should be aware of as they take their DevOps efforts into the new year.
  • NumPy Plan for dropping Python 2.7 support
    The Python core team plans to stop supporting Python 2 in 2020. The NumPy project has supported both Python 2 and Python 3 in parallel since 2010, and has found that supporting Python 2 is an increasing burden on our limited resources; thus, we plan to eventually drop Python 2 support as well. Now that we're entering the final years of community-supported Python 2, the NumPy project wants to clarify our plans, with the goal of to helping our downstream ecosystem make plans and accomplish the transition with as little disruption as possible.
  • Google SLING: An Open Source Natural Language Parser
    Google Research has just released an open source project that might be of interest if you are into natural language processing. SLING is a combination of recurrent neural networks and frame based parsing. Natural language parsing is an important topic. You can get meaning from structure and parsing is how you get structure. It is important in processing both text and voice. If you have any hope that Siri, Cortana or Alexa are going to get any better then you need to have better natural language understanding - not just the slot and filler systems currently in use.