FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-20-2008, 10:37 AM
Tom Horsley
 
Default Ahh, forget repo fusion :-).

Just out of curiosity, how feasible do you think it might
be to give up on the overwhelmingly complex task of
making all 3rd party software installation compatible,
and instead make linux userland be able to install
multiple incompatible packages (heck, be able to install
both rpms and debs for that matter) in multiple "virtual
roots"?

It seems like adding a tree structure to the dynamic linker
and the ldconfig database could get most of this, so programs
loaded from the /alt/debian/usr/bin directory would first
load shared libs pointed at by the /alt/debian/etc/ldconfig
then fall back to /etc/ldconfig (just as a hypothetical
example).

Aside from allowing essentially any packages from any linux
distribution or repo to be loaded on one system, this same
technique could reduce the mind-shattering nonsense that
is the current multilib support for 32 and 64 bit by
simply taking the same approach to divide the system into
32 and 64 bit roots.

Just a wild idea, but I wonder what people think?

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 01-20-2008, 02:49 PM
Jim Cornette
 
Default Ahh, forget repo fusion :-).

Tom Horsley wrote:


Just a wild idea, but I wonder what people think?



A wild idea indeed! It sounds better to call it repo confusion instead.
Na idea like this might have some positive benefits but it would be
extremely hard to practically apply in my view.


Jim

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 01-20-2008, 05:04 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Ahh, forget repo fusion :-).

Tom Horsley wrote:

Just out of curiosity, how feasible do you think it might
be to give up on the overwhelmingly complex task of
making all 3rd party software installation compatible,
and instead make linux userland be able to install
multiple incompatible packages (heck, be able to install
both rpms and debs for that matter) in multiple "virtual
roots"?


Why not just give up on any Linux install being compatible with any
other and compile everything statically instead - like the commercial
apps are forced to do since they can't count on anything in common among
distributions?


A few years ago I'd have argued the other way, but now the cost of disk
and RAM are orders of magnitude lower and the old line about how you can
fix a bug in all apps with a single library update is offset by the fact
that a 'yum update' would replace them all with the recompiled fix anyway.


It would at least be interesting to have the option of bloated but
bulletproof apps as a defense against developers that clearly don't care
about compatibility and likely never will.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 01-20-2008, 05:15 PM
"Arthur Pemberton"
 
Default Ahh, forget repo fusion :-).

On Jan 20, 2008 12:04 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom Horsley wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, how feasible do you think it might
> > be to give up on the overwhelmingly complex task of
> > making all 3rd party software installation compatible,
> > and instead make linux userland be able to install
> > multiple incompatible packages (heck, be able to install
> > both rpms and debs for that matter) in multiple "virtual
> > roots"?
>
> Why not just give up on any Linux install being compatible with any
> other and compile everything statically instead - like the commercial
> apps are forced to do since they can't count on anything in common among
> distributions?

Kinda like Google Earth and Skype?


--
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 01-20-2008, 05:37 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Ahh, forget repo fusion :-).

Arthur Pemberton wrote:


Just out of curiosity, how feasible do you think it might
be to give up on the overwhelmingly complex task of
making all 3rd party software installation compatible,
and instead make linux userland be able to install
multiple incompatible packages (heck, be able to install
both rpms and debs for that matter) in multiple "virtual
roots"?

Why not just give up on any Linux install being compatible with any
other and compile everything statically instead - like the commercial
apps are forced to do since they can't count on anything in common among
distributions?


Kinda like Google Earth and Skype?


Kinda like _every_ linux app where it isn't recompiled for the library
version de jour and this month's file system committee shuffle for every
distro/version. So far most of the discussion of problems here has just
been about one version of one distro that can't even stay compatible
with itself. Try to imagine building something that you expect to run
for years across different distros/versions. And this is an OS where
most of the application level API was specified 25+ years ago.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 01-20-2008, 06:01 PM
Craig White
 
Default Ahh, forget repo fusion :-).

On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 12:37 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>
> >>> Just out of curiosity, how feasible do you think it might
> >>> be to give up on the overwhelmingly complex task of
> >>> making all 3rd party software installation compatible,
> >>> and instead make linux userland be able to install
> >>> multiple incompatible packages (heck, be able to install
> >>> both rpms and debs for that matter) in multiple "virtual
> >>> roots"?
> >> Why not just give up on any Linux install being compatible with any
> >> other and compile everything statically instead - like the commercial
> >> apps are forced to do since they can't count on anything in common among
> >> distributions?
> >
> > Kinda like Google Earth and Skype?
>
> Kinda like _every_ linux app where it isn't recompiled for the library
> version de jour and this month's file system committee shuffle for every
> distro/version. So far most of the discussion of problems here has just
> been about one version of one distro that can't even stay compatible
> with itself. Try to imagine building something that you expect to run
> for years across different distros/versions. And this is an OS where
> most of the application level API was specified 25+ years ago.
----
remind me again...why are you here?

Craig

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 01-20-2008, 06:17 PM
Tom Horsley
 
Default Ahh, forget repo fusion :-).

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:04:09 -0600
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why not just give up on any Linux install being compatible with any
> other and compile everything statically instead

We tried that, and redhat has managed to produce a libc in which
it is actually impossible to statically link a working
program. All sorts of routines (pam related things like getpwuid
for one example) drag in libraries dynamically, and when they do
that in a static program, you then find you've managed to load
two conflicting copies of malloc (or something equally destructive).

Anyway, If I wanted to recompile everything to get it working,
I'd just switch to gentoo, I was merely brainstorming the idea
of a linux where you could run any program from any distro :-).

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 01-20-2008, 07:02 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Ahh, forget repo fusion :-).

Craig White wrote:

On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 12:37 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:

Arthur Pemberton wrote:


Just out of curiosity, how feasible do you think it might
be to give up on the overwhelmingly complex task of
making all 3rd party software installation compatible,
and instead make linux userland be able to install
multiple incompatible packages (heck, be able to install
both rpms and debs for that matter) in multiple "virtual
roots"?

Why not just give up on any Linux install being compatible with any
other and compile everything statically instead - like the commercial
apps are forced to do since they can't count on anything in common among
distributions?

Kinda like Google Earth and Skype?
Kinda like _every_ linux app where it isn't recompiled for the library
version de jour and this month's file system committee shuffle for every
distro/version. So far most of the discussion of problems here has just
been about one version of one distro that can't even stay compatible
with itself. Try to imagine building something that you expect to run
for years across different distros/versions. And this is an OS where
most of the application level API was specified 25+ years ago.

----
remind me again...why are you here?


Mostly because the mistakes made here propagate into other versions that
I'll eventually want to use - although they keep much of what I do on
Windows anyway.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 01-20-2008, 07:22 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Ahh, forget repo fusion :-).

Tom Horsley wrote:


Why not just give up on any Linux install being compatible with any
other and compile everything statically instead


We tried that, and redhat has managed to produce a libc in which
it is actually impossible to statically link a working
program. All sorts of routines (pam related things like getpwuid
for one example) drag in libraries dynamically, and when they do
that in a static program, you then find you've managed to load
two conflicting copies of malloc (or something equally destructive).

Anyway, If I wanted to recompile everything to get it working,
I'd just switch to gentoo, I was merely brainstorming the idea
of a linux where you could run any program from any distro :-).


I didn't mean _you_ would recompile everything. I was suggesting that
everything which is not compiled against the stock libs (as in the stuff
from alternate repos) would all be statically compiled so as to not
break when the stock versions do their frequent incompatible updates -
and a side effect would be to not introduce alternate/incompatible
libraries. When a library changed in such a repo, I'd expect the repo
versions to be recompiled. The only effect on the user side would be
larger updates in the cases where multiple applications use same libs.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 01-21-2008, 07:58 AM
Tomasz Torcz
 
Default Ahh, forget repo fusion :-).

Dnia 20-01-2008, nie o godzinie 06:37 -0500, Tom Horsley pisze:
> Just out of curiosity, how feasible do you think it might
> be to give up on the overwhelmingly complex task of
> making all 3rd party software installation compatible,
> and instead make linux userland be able to install
> multiple incompatible packages

Pretty possible → http://nix.cs.uu.nl/

--
Tomasz Torcz

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:15 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org