Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   CRUX (http://www.linux-archive.org/crux/)
-   -   Stop calling CRUX a source based distro (http://www.linux-archive.org/crux/223780-stop-calling-crux-source-based-distro.html)

01-07-2009 01:19 AM

Stop calling CRUX a source based distro
 
Is it just me or does anyone disagree that CRUX is a source based distro.

1. Release ISOs are shipped with packages.
2. Applications are installed from packages.

Consider FreeBSD's ports system (and possibly pkgsrc) software is installed directly from the source. An intermediatary package is only built if requested. This in my opinion is a truly source based method.

CRUX in my eyes is simply a package based distro with no central package repository.

For the case of the single user CRUX may appear to be source based due to the absence of a central package repo, but this is naive. I have often had many CRUX boxes all with similar software installed, it would be a horrible waste of time to build packages on every single machine. Naturally you would have a build machine that all other CRUXen could access packages from.

Package based distros with a central package repo are still at their roots, source based. Someone had to compile the source and ship a package. So called package based distros such as debian, archlinux and fedora still have tools for building their preferred package type from source.

The only difference is that CRUX doesn't have the man power (or want) to maintain a central repo and enforce dependency hell on it's users.

</rant>

--
Lucas Hazel <lucas@die.net.au>
_______________________________________________
CRUX mailing list
CRUX@lists.crux.nu
http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux

"Philip Stark" 01-07-2009 01:28 AM

Stop calling CRUX a source based distro
 
Hi Lucas

I agree with you, the software management suite on CRUX is in fact
package based, true. But it makes a lot more sense to say that CRUX is
source-based if someone asks. Because usually he wants to know whether
he can lazily download the packages and install or has to compile them
himself. Or in another case he wants to know whether it is facilitated
to compile the packages himself and thus inflict his own personal
CFLAGS and whatever optimizations he needs/wants/likes to have.

I vote for "it all depends on the context".

I have a question for you though. Why is it bad when people call it a
source-based distribution. Is that something to do with honor? Or
simply because it's basically, at the core of the statement, wrong
even though it's, as illustrated above, practical. ;-)

cheers
Philip Stark

P.S: This is my first contribution to this ML. Hello everyone. I am a
EE student at ETH in Switzerland.

2009/1/7 <lucas@die.net.au>:
>
> Is it just me or does anyone disagree that CRUX is a source based distro.
>
> 1. Release ISOs are shipped with packages.
> 2. Applications are installed from packages.
>
> Consider FreeBSD's ports system (and possibly pkgsrc) software is installed directly from the source. An intermediatary package is only built if requested. This in my opinion is a truly source based method.
>
> CRUX in my eyes is simply a package based distro with no central package repository.
>
> For the case of the single user CRUX may appear to be source based due to the absence of a central package repo, but this is naive. I have often had many CRUX boxes all with similar software installed, it would be a horrible waste of time to build packages on every single machine. Naturally you would have a build machine that all other CRUXen could access packages from.
>
> Package based distros with a central package repo are still at their roots, source based. Someone had to compile the source and ship a package. So called package based distros such as debian, archlinux and fedora still have tools for building their preferred package type from source.
>
> The only difference is that CRUX doesn't have the man power (or want) to maintain a central repo and enforce dependency hell on it's users.
>
> </rant>
>
> --
> Lucas Hazel <lucas@die.net.au>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRUX mailing list
> CRUX@lists.crux.nu
> http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux
>
>
_______________________________________________
CRUX mailing list
CRUX@lists.crux.nu
http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux

Danny Rawlins 01-07-2009 03:17 AM

Stop calling CRUX a source based distro
 
Hi.
> Hi Lucas
>
> I agree with you, the software management suite on CRUX is in fact
> package based, true. But it makes a lot more sense to say that CRUX is
> source-based if someone asks. Because usually he wants to know whether
> he can lazily download the packages and install or has to compile them
> himself. Or in another case he wants to know whether it is facilitated
> to compile the packages himself and thus inflict his own personal
> CFLAGS and whatever optimizations he needs/wants/likes to have.
>
> I vote for "it all depends on the context".
>
To me it's a source based distro as you have to compile, but it has a
binary bootstrapping iso to get you started
> I have a question for you though. Why is it bad when people call it a
> source-based distribution. Is that something to do with honor? Or
> simply because it's basically, at the core of the statement, wrong
> even though it's, as illustrated above, practical. ;-)
>
> cheers
> Philip Stark
>
> P.S: This is my first contribution to this ML. Hello everyone. I am a
> EE student at ETH in Switzerland.
>
> 2009/1/7 <lucas@die.net.au>:
>
>> Is it just me or does anyone disagree that CRUX is a source based distro.
>>
>> 1. Release ISOs are shipped with packages.
>> 2. Applications are installed from packages.
>>
After the package is built. what is the point here. you have to compile
the port to make the package to begin with. I'ts still source based with
a binary package cache.
>> Consider FreeBSD's ports system (and possibly pkgsrc) software is installed directly from the source. An intermediatary package is only built if requested. This in my opinion is a truly source based method.
>>
>> CRUX in my eyes is simply a package based distro with no central package repository.
>>
>> For the case of the single user CRUX may appear to be source based due to the absence of a central package repo, but this is naive. I have often had many CRUX boxes all with similar software installed, it would be a horrible waste of time to build packages on every single machine. Naturally you would have a build machine that all other CRUXen could access packages from.
>>
>> Package based distros with a central package repo are still at their roots, source based. Someone had to compile the source and ship a package. So called package based distros such as debian, archlinux and fedora still have tools for building their preferred package type from source.
>>
>> The only difference is that CRUX doesn't have the man power (or want) to maintain a central repo and enforce dependency hell on it's users.
>>
>> </rant>
>>
>> --
>> Lucas Hazel <lucas@die.net.au>
>>
>>
Regards,
Danny Rawlins
_______________________________________________
CRUX mailing list
CRUX@lists.crux.nu
http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux

Thomas Penteker 01-07-2009 06:50 PM

Stop calling CRUX a source based distro
 
* lucas@die.net.au (lucas@die.net.au) wrote:
> Is it just me or does anyone disagree that CRUX is a source based distro.
>
> 1. Release ISOs are shipped with packages.
> 2. Applications are installed from packages.
> (...)

In total this topic does not seem to be a point of much interest to me.

After all it "ships" the sources before building the set of files (flat
textfiles, compressed man pages, binaries, yadda yadda) needed to make a
program useful.


kind regards, Thomas Penteker
--
foobar!
_______________________________________________
CRUX mailing list
CRUX@lists.crux.nu
http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux

"James Mills" 01-07-2009 09:43 PM

Stop calling CRUX a source based distro
 
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Thomas Penteker <tek@serverop.de> wrote:
> * lucas@die.net.au (lucas@die.net.au) wrote:
>> Is it just me or does anyone disagree that CRUX is a source based distro.
>>
>> 1. Release ISOs are shipped with packages.
>> 2. Applications are installed from packages.
>> (...)
>
> In total this topic does not seem to be a point of much interest to me.

This topic interests me little also.

For those that care, CRUX can be considered
both a source and binary based distribution,
however, perhaps we should call it neither.

I have many a time explained to new users of
CRUX that it builds packages from source, but
that you can also just use packages (if you have
them).

I guess one thing to point out is that we do not
have a central repository of binary packages like
we do ports. Furthermore, I do not th8ink having
one in future would be beneficial to CRUX anyway.
In multiple systems in a network I have maintained
such a repository myself so that packages could
be built on a master server and upgraded on all
other nodes.

Point in case, CRUX is neither solely a source
or binary based distribution.

Let us talk about this no further :)

cheers
James
_______________________________________________
CRUX mailing list
CRUX@lists.crux.nu
http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux

01-07-2009 10:48 PM

Stop calling CRUX a source based distro
 
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:43:36AM +1000, James Mills wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Thomas Penteker <tek@serverop.de> wrote:
> > * lucas@die.net.au (lucas@die.net.au) wrote:
> >> Is it just me or does anyone disagree that CRUX is a source based distro.
> >>
> >> 1. Release ISOs are shipped with packages.
> >> 2. Applications are installed from packages.
> >> (...)
> >
> > In total this topic does not seem to be a point of much interest to me.
>
> This topic interests me little also.
>
> For those that care, CRUX can be considered
> both a source and binary based distribution,
> however, perhaps we should call it neither.
>
> I have many a time explained to new users of
> CRUX that it builds packages from source, but
> that you can also just use packages (if you have
> them).
>
> I guess one thing to point out is that we do not
> have a central repository of binary packages like
> we do ports. Furthermore, I do not th8ink having
> one in future would be beneficial to CRUX anyway.
> In multiple systems in a network I have maintained
> such a repository myself so that packages could
> be built on a master server and upgraded on all
> other nodes.
>
> Point in case, CRUX is neither solely a source
> or binary based distribution.
>
> Let us talk about this no further :)
>

Such a long reply for someone who doesn't care ;P

Such reasoning would mean that no distro is purely source or binary based, it all depends on how you use it. I'm sure we've all experienced the annoyance in binary distros where the provided package does not have feature X enabled and have to build from source, does this invalidate the definition of a distro as binary based once you start building from source? Probably not. Debian is and always will be considered a binary distro, regardless of how you use it.

So what then defines a distro as binary or source based. Perhaps it is the primary method of obtaining software for installation. CRUX would still be in a grey area as we do provide packages, given a very small subset of the ports available.

All said I still consider the definition of CRUX being source based as incorrect. Many distros fit into this mixed binary/source type. Perhaps I'm just fighting with semantics, but I think too many people see source vs. binary distros as mutually exclusive distrobution methods.

Also, the best way to kill a thread that is of no interest to you is to not reply :)

--
Lucas Hazel <lucas@die.net.au>
_______________________________________________
CRUX mailing list
CRUX@lists.crux.nu
http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux

"James Mills" 01-07-2009 10:50 PM

Stop calling CRUX a source based distro
 
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:48 AM, <lucas@die.net.au> wrote:
(...)

> Such a long reply for someone who doesn't care ;P

The problem is I do care :)

> So what then defines a distro as binary or source based. Perhaps it is the primary method of obtaining software for installation. CRUX would still be in a grey area as we do provide packages, given a very small subset of the ports available.

It's architecture. CRUX has a fairly minimal
and open architecture. It does not confine
itself to either source or binary packaging.

> All said I still consider the definition of CRUX being source based as incorrect. Many distros fit into this mixed binary/source type. Perhaps I'm just fighting with semantics, but I think too many people see source vs. binary distros as mutually exclusive distrobution methods.

Yes it is just semantics.

I would move to relax the definition that CRUX
is source, and rather be more clear about this.

source and/or binary are not mutually exclusive
as we have all experienced.

prt-get vs. pkg-get ? You can use them both
almost interchangably :)

cheers
James
_______________________________________________
CRUX mailing list
CRUX@lists.crux.nu
http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:06 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.