Linked by Jason Vagner on Fri 16th Apr 2004 20:37 UTC
O'Reilly's latest entry in the "Pocket" series, "Linux Pocket Guide", bills itself as a "quick reference for experienced users and a guided tour for beginners".
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
That wouldn't work, because each distro stores files in slightly different locations.
No shit, Sherlock. That's why we need a standard
There's also technical issues with a single package solution. Most applications can be built with different types of support. For example, GAIM can be built with or without spelling support, Mozilla with or without Xft/GTK2, Rhythmbox with a variety of audio backends, etc, etc.
Doesn't this only apply if you're compiling from source? If the package is a binary one (as in Debian), then what difference does any of this make?
If you've had issues with out of date packages, you aren't using the right distribution. Off the top of my head, I know Debian, Gentoo, Source Mage, and ArchLinux all have very well stocked and very up to date repositories.
Ok, so maybe you can find up-to-date versions of 19 out of 20 packages. But it always seems like it's that 20th one I'm looking for.
I get new versions within a week on Arch.
New versions of what, specifically? Everything?
And besides, if you don't rely on the package mainainters, you have to rely on the developer. That's stupid. He's busy writing the code, he doesn't have time to make/test 20 different packages.
I don't think you're quite understanding me, so let me try again.
The developer would create only one package - say, application.pak. Whatever options are available at the point of installation, such information could be laid out (for example) in an xml file included with the package. Since the makeup and layout of the xml file is described by the Package Management Standard (called PMS .. I like that), you could use any package manager you wanted that supported the standard.
So, in essense, you wouldn't be tied to any one package manager. Whether you like GUI or command-line package managers, take your pick! Only thing these package managers would have in common is that they all would work the same 'under the hood'. Kind of like email and IRC clients. Different interfaces, same standard underneath.
Since the OSS world is always crying about standards, I say when it comes to package management, either shit or get off the pot.