No subject


Fri Dec 19 16:39:21 PST 2008


<div><br>You have me party wrong here. &nbsp; Prefered for me is that applications use distribution runtime reduced uploads for ISV&#39;s cost saving. <br><br>But in case of issues there needs to be a clean and effective system to override distribution runtime. &nbsp; So lets say no distribution gets glibc wrong there would be no need for a override to exist.&nbsp; Problem is currently LSB provides no system that ISV&#39;s can say if it don&#39;t work due to a distribution glitch they can do anything about it other than ship the runtime in all future versions of there application effectively expanding size of application and secuirty risks.&nbsp; Currently from a simple cost point of view 0install is cheaper. <br>
<br>If valid system for overrides and shared runtimes if user finds they need a lot of overrides to make LSB applications work in there distributions it a clear sign that things the distribution they selected is either being poorly maintained or running a lot of experminental stuff.<br>
<br>Blame goes where it belongs.&nbsp;&nbsp; LSB model currently means defective runtime in a distribution can end up blamed on the ISV not supporting that distribution.&nbsp;&nbsp; ISV is better not to support Linux at all than get in the middle of distribution politics.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
But I believe in the LSB&#39;s merits. I believe that we *can* rely on the LSB base system and the runtime it provides, as every other operating system&#39;s runtime is relied on. Let&#39;s not daemonize the distributors as unreliable because they, in theory, *could* break their compliance promises, but just trust their ability to build a reliable, stable runtime platform for third-party software, as many have proven long enough. Of course this means that each application will have to ship a copy of their dependencies that are not covered by the LSB, and of course this will mean duplication to a certain degree, but this is, in every case, preferable to a system that encourages a culture of distrust between third-party software providers on the one and distributions on the other side; with such a culture, such a source of hatred between core system developers and independent software providers, the rise of Linux will fail miserably.<br>

<br>
For this reason, please, reconsider the LSB as a reliable building block for the future of Linux software deployment. Otherwise, I see no further ground for our discussions.<br>
<font color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br>Problem you are not getting here.&nbsp; Current design LSB design is unreliable. &nbsp; Not all distributions have good maintainers this is a simple fact. &nbsp; People running like fedora a testing ground for experimental code of course will never be reliable platform for a LSB runtime.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even Ubuntu will use experimental patches.<br>
<br>This is the brick wall.&nbsp;&nbsp; ISV&#39;s don&#39;t want bad press like application does not work on Ubuntu so users go to competitor.&nbsp;&nbsp; Distributions even do manage to break compatibility with there own packages let alone LSB ones.&nbsp; Like installing applications that need mpeg processing and will crash with out it Ubuntu does this.&nbsp;&nbsp; Reson they altered a lib applications have all there dependances meet only one problem 1 of the dependances don&#39;t work.<br>
<br>Ok if Distributions never ever broke compadiblity with there own packages leading to applications failure you might have a leg to stand on that LSB can work.<br></div></div><br>I see LSB as something just by adding support for runtimes number 1 becomes a truly reliable system.&nbsp;&nbsp; Number 2 promtes runtime sharing between distributions.<br>
<br>Linux Standard Base is about bring distributions to a common core.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Key objective of Linux Standard Base is to allow ISV&#39;s applications to operate on other distributions.&nbsp;&nbsp; Remember distributions themselfs are ISV&#39;s.<br>
<br>You line is exactly the same as saying I should trust that my harddrive does not fail so should not make backups of my data when you are saying I should trust distributions to get it right.&nbsp;&nbsp; I want a plan B.&nbsp;&nbsp; If plan A distributions providing runtime fails.&nbsp; I want a dependable fall back location in plan B.&nbsp;&nbsp; You cannot promise me plan A will not fail from time to time it has failed in the past and will fail in the future this is just the way it is.<br>
<br>Peter Dolding<br>

------=_Part_75706_12055018.1230132122193--


More information about the packaging mailing list