[lsb-discuss] tux assistant idea

rahul at reno.cis.upenn.edu rahul at reno.cis.upenn.edu
Tue Feb 4 09:34:27 PST 2003

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 04:52:58PM -0000, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Yes.... and? Bear in mind simply installing the bulk of a package into a new
> directory each time would not give you NeXTStep style appfolders. It would
> simply change the on disk layout and mean a bigger PATH.

Entirely agreed..it needs help from the loader..

> > should LSB be concerned with the interface of how libraries are made
> available to third party developers, or with the implementation (loader and
> ld.so.conf vs filesystem layout)
> They are one and the same, in a sense. Putting shared libs into the same
> directory has various advantages, esp in regards to networking settings. There
> may be smarter ways of locating the DSOs, but the current system isn't that bad.

i dont think they are..(see later)

> > I belong to the latter camp because I work with students and professors who
> > work with desktop linux. And they are deserting in droves for the Mac OS-X.
> If they are "deserting in droves" because of the directory layout, then they
> need to get their priorities straight. IMO the MacOS approach to packages and
> dependancies will bite them on the ass later (is already doing so to some
> extent with the rather shambolic rollout of weak references).

No. its because that layout enables one drag or click installation. I dont
think dependencies should be exposed to end users the way we do with RPM.
There is enough disk space and memory on machines today that its ok to hae multiple copies, but to be able to access system provides copies in the case thy are appropriate, as on Mac.

Dependencies should be handled gentoo style at the ebuild level, use source if
you can do that. its entirely possible in gentoo to use the structure though to produce tbz2 packages which dont expose dependencies to the users (though gentoo not being geared towards end users dosent do such binary packages explicitly).

> As to the distinction between /usr, /usr/local and /opt, yes, the FHS could be
> clearer I think. However, although you can install packages each into its own
> directory, I don't really see where the benefits come from. Anyway, end users
> shouldn't really see the UNIX fs layout anyway, it should be abstracted by the
> GUI.

And by the shell too. I agree entirely. I think the Mac makes it easier though,
by allowing apps to be installed anywhere, and by having them run off their wn appdirs. Thats the simplicity I think is necessary on Linux..and not just at GUI,but at shell level (like say, using the open command, or doing something new with shells besides completion since ksh days). No hardcoded paths, relative loading. Why do we need root for most things?

(BTW Rox-Filer does reasonable things at GUI level)

Even prefs in mac can be changed on the command line with "defaults". System startup allows dependencies to be explicitly specified external to startup files in
plist files. There is typically good separation between interface and implementation. I think its a good first try..

My only point is this: make things simple for developers and end users. I think
the LSB works to some degree on the former, but not on the latter. And it should
(and already does at many places) give latitude for a huge amount of experimentation.

> thanks -mike
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at freestandards.org
> http://freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list