Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Feb 2007 14:59 UTC, submitted by lucasvr
Linux "GoboLinux is a unique distribution in many ways. It's built from scratch following the Linux From Scratch procedure and uses custom boot scripts, personalized directory structure, and a simple yet comprehensive source-based dependency-resolving package management system. GoboLinux is perhaps best known for its alternate filesystem hierarchy. Unlike Linux's traditional Filesystem hierarchy, where a program has bits and pieces scattered in several places like /etc, /usr/bin, and /usr/share, each program gets its own directory tree under GoboLinux."
Thread beginning with comment 213236
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: GoboLinux is great, but...
by Priest on Thu 15th Feb 2007 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GoboLinux is great, but..."
Priest
Member since:
2006-05-12

One of the problems with package systems is that if I just extract an archive to a bunch of directories, the package manager has no database entry for it.

With Gobo, if I extract it to /programs/firefox, there is no need for the package manager to have a separate entry for it.

This means if I want to use apt, I can find the application when I am done.

If I want to also use AutoPackage or ZeroInstall along side apt, I still have a database of what is installed

The beauty of it is that you don't have to have everyone conform to using the same method of packaging software.

repository systems don't solve everything, but they are still useful and there is no reason they need to be considered "non-preferred".

Reply Parent Score: 2

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

You're right, it's a beautiful system from the user-end perspective. My point was, when will/how can we get the original application developers to start packaging their apps in this way, instead of just providing source tarballs? Until they do that, the selection of easy-to-install software for Linux will continue be artificially limited.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

"My point was, when will/how can we get the original application developers to start packaging their apps in this way, instead of just providing source tarballs?"

Personally, I think adopting the Gobo file system right out the gate is a large step.

I think FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) really has no specific place for graphical (desktop) applications.

The closest thing to it is probably /opt.

Currently software seems to end up an one of 4 or 5 places, I think the best path to success would be really sitting down and deciding where applications like Firefox, Gimp, XMMS, etc. belong and ensuring that this is clearly pointed out in the FHS standard.

I think if people want to stick the configs for ftpd or sshd in /etc/ that is fine, but there is no need for libraries or configs specific to gimp to reside in any place other than /programs/gimp/, /opt/gimp/, or what ever is decided on by the FHS committee.

I am also under the belief that if the distro shipped with gimp or if you installed it, that does not necessarily mean it needs to reside in a different location.

Everybody follows FHS, or they would not be considered LSB compliant. The problem is that the specification is so painstakingly vague that you can stick your binaries just about anywhere on the disk and still comply.

FHS is really designed for system files and servers, it has never been updated to address the fact that there are actually people using Linux as a desktop/workstation. The problem is that getting the UNIX purists that actually have say in the specification to agree that a /programs or /applications folder is needed would take an act of god.

Reply Parent Score: 1