[Gllug] Installing Linux software (Part II)

[Richard Cottrill]

Well this sort of thing is still being thrashed out. Some things that
require similar operation seem to take a long time to stabilise in Linux,
and this is one of them. Debian's plans seem to be the most stable because
they have a policy for what goes into a package... The problem here is that
everyone else uses RPM, so Debian policy has effect only so far as the
Debian distribution. The RPM problems extend beyond one distro (and that's
where the problems begin).

I mean, if you get the meta data from (say) the SuSE JDK 1.3.1 it'll give
you information about what it provides/what dependencies it can fulfil
(java, java2, etc). If you look at the 'official' SUN distribution of JDK
1.3.1 it will not provide anything, thus dependencies will not be fulfilled,
and errors will abound whenever you try to install something that depends on
Java ("But I just installed Java" you will say). These are both the same
binaries, they both provide a java environment, and they're both rpms. They
are not the same thing.

In the end the problem comes down to politics, entrenched interests, and
legacy investments. It may be fixed/migrated, but it will take quite a
while. I try to stick with a single distribution for packages, and that way
there's less of a problem. The more things depend on a package, I think the
wiser it is to stick closely to the distribution's own packages.

Richard

(Ok, so it's a bit wordy, but I think you get the idea)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gllug-admin at linux.co.uk [mailto:gllug-admin at linux.co.uk]On Behalf
> Of James.Rocks at equant.com
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 4:54 PM
> To: gllug at linux.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [Gllug] Installing Linux software (Part II)
>
>
> Hi Jim (et al),
>
> > I must confess to having less trouble with Debian with than I did
> > with Red Hat and SuSE.  However I know more now so it is not a fair
> > comparason.
> > It would be good for the rpm distros to maybe get together and try
> > and improve the situation or alternatively bow down to the one true
> > distro and adapt apt-get as the package management system of choice.
> > ;-P
> > Yes David, I know it is fundamentally fscked but it isn't as
> > fundamentally fscked as the rest. ;-)
> > I still say tar is your friend and feel an un-natural desire to
> > use Slackware and Rock Linux.
>
> Okay ...
>
> So can anyone tell me why it is that Linux installations are
> built this way
> ... I mean what is the advantage over a single package installation (which
> some Linux packages appear to be)? Perhaps it is to confer a modular type
> design on the OS (which in my opinion is inadequate since the
> packages seem
> to often ask for specific versions of modules and, as I understand it,
> modularity is more about keep I/F's the same whist where possible whilst
> improving a given module.
>
> I can see that the way that Windows installations sometimes blindly
> overwrite DLL's etc. can cause problems (though apparently W2K monitors &
> corrects for this, presumably XP does too) ... I can testify to that from
> several years (fortunately a while ago) of HelpDesk experience.
>
> I figure the complex & confusing nature of Linux installations (whilst
> argubly historical) has remained that way for some reason more than "we
> never got round to it" :-)
>
> James
>
>
> --
> Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
> http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug
>


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug