Subject: Re: Debian as a social group and how to develop it better - msg#00025

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Debian as a social group and how to develop it better

On Monday 2002 December 02 10:13, Martin Schulze wrote: > Xavian-Anderson Macpherson wrote: > > On Monday 2002 December 02 02:50, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > Why (if everything is the same), would anyone have to recomplie for > > binaries, if the binaries were made once by the packagers and remained in > > their original condition? > > Because, and your assumption es totally wrong, nothing is the same, > rather than everything. I was specifically speaking in the context of my (perfect world) example. I said IF!! Not IS!! I know everything IS NOT the same. That's why I wrote this! Here, let me make this simple. If ALL of linux, were handled in the same way as the KERNEL, there would be no more questions as to what works and what does not! And no, the licensing would not have to change. Because just as the kernel is currently available to everyone, but only has one maintainer(?), so could all of the other packages as well. I geuss now that I have said this, I have to ask the question. Am I correct that Linus is the only one who approves of the changes to the kernel? What about my statements of the security models. Now I don't think source code for security patches are made available. I still want the source code available to everyone. I just want one person or group to be SOLELY responsible for changes in their own packages. There are too many spoons in the pot! > > Regards, > > Joey

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Debian as a social group and how to develop it better

On Mon, 02 Dec 2002, Xavian-Anderson Macpherson wrote: > On Monday 2002 December 02 10:13, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Xavian-Anderson Macpherson wrote: > > > On Monday 2002 December 02 02:50, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > > > Why (if everything is the same), would anyone have to recomplie for > > > binaries, if the binaries were made once by the packagers and remained in > > > their original condition? > > > > Because, and your assumption es totally wrong, nothing is the same, > > rather than everything. > > I was specifically speaking in the context of my (perfect world) example. I > said IF!! Not IS!! I know everything IS NOT the same. That's why I wrote > this! Here, let me make this simple. If ALL of linux, were handled in the > same way as the KERNEL, - it would not work on (n-1) architectures out of the box but would require huge patching - there would be even more distributions than there are ATM. > Am I correct that Linus is the > only one who approves of the changes to the kernel? No. Different people handle different branches. And then there are even more semi- and un- official versions distributed from ftp.kernel.org and other places. Also be aware that one cannot build _the_ binary image which works in all possible scenarios. There are reasons to build things differently. The same applies to other software as well. Also be aware that software which builds for and works on ia32 does not automagically work on all other platforms as well. In short what you want is not possible and probably never will. Not even in a perfect world. yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred. | : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `- http://www.debian.org/ pgpbRM3a2GPg8.pgp Description: PGP signature

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: Debian as a social group and how to develop it better

On Mon, 2002-12-02 at 15:34, Xavian-Anderson Macpherson wrote: > Have I said enough?? Yes, thank you. Regards, Andrew. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew @ Catalyst .Net.NZ Ltd, PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington WEB: http://catalyst.net.nz/ PHYS: Level 2, 150-154 Willis St DDI: +64(4)916-7201 MOB: +64(21)635-694 OFFICE: +64(4)499-2267 Survey for nothing with http://survey.net.nz/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: Debian as a social group and how to develop it better

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson wrote: > > * We have to play the package-naming game if the upstream doesn't know > > about SONAME. > I just tried to find SONAME using man. How can I find out what this is? Will > the LSB eliminate this? What about the new UnitedLinux distribution. man ld Neither LSB nor UL will eliminate sonames. If they would, you would experience a new set of problems that already happend when SuSE and RedHat used experimental glibc or gcc versions, just for everything. > > * If some other distribution uses, say, glibc 2.2 and Debian uses 2.1[1], > > then using the same package name doesn't work. > You are mixing apples and oranges. Why are or would you be using the same Maybe you should provide a detailed example instead. > name for packages that do not use the same dependencies. Again you missed my Because the distribution uses different libraries and stuff. > point. If you are using the packages as they come from the supplier, > everyone would have the same packages with the same dependencies. Here again No, then everybody would end up having to compile everything on their own. Regards, Joey -- All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory... -- Larry Wall