On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 11:22:35AM +0300, Matti Airas wrote:
> I never read a single word anywhere stating that Debian would be
> anti-commercial.
On the other hand, there's nothing stating that Debian has to bend to
commercial pressure, if that would compromise the technical quality of
the dist
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 04:07:15PM -0500, Pete Harlan wrote:
> So if Debian wants to define its runlevels differently than the
> standard, then it just has to adjust its LSB-install program to
> translate from one LSB runlevel to its local runlevel, and install the
> link in whatever directory it w
> The reason why the run levels are specified was to handle cases where
> An LSB application may wish to have some kind of daemon which is only
> running when X11/xdm is running.
>
> Now, we could have added yet another level of indirection (in computer
I'm probably missing something here, but
> Apt-get, while developed for Debian, is already used on several
> RPM-based distributions (Conectiva, Mandrake) as well, so it is not
> really a packaging format issue. ... although I miss it every single
> second when maintaining any Red Hat server at work...
apt-get doesn't function well o
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 12:20:54AM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote:
|
| I believe that any attempt to assign standardized meanings to
| runlevels falls into this category: It makes it easier to setup a
| system that does normal things in a normal configuration and easier
| for third parties to set up
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Eric E Moore wrote:
> Dave> Worse, though, is the case of a binary-only package which makes
> Dave> assumptions about running services based on runlevel. When it
> Dave> breaks because of customized runlevels, the admin _can't_ fix it
> Dave> except by goi
> "Dave" == Dave Sherohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> It's not that symmetric, I'm afraid.
Dave> Worse, though, is the case of a binary-only package which makes
Dave> assumptions about running services based on runlevel. When it
Dave> breaks because of customized runlevels, the admi
Dave Sherohman wrote:
> ... And, to me at least, `xdm stop` obviously means
> "shut xdm down", while `init 3` has no readily apparent relationship to
> X or xdm unless you're bringing outside knowledge with you.
>
Bingo. That's what the arguements boils down to.
What is most important IMHO, i
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 12:05:12PM +0100, Eric E Moore wrote:
> Ok, you don't define runlevels, admin with nonstandard runlevel scheme
> (runlevels meaning different things) has to move scripts around after
> software installs. You do, and guess what? an admin with nonstandard
> runlevels has to
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Me wrote:
> I totally agree with you. There's a LOT more to cross distro
> compatibility than the package format and manager! A whole heck of a
> lot!!
>
> What would be cool would be if someone came up with a project
> specifically targetted at this much larger problem: cross-
Hi
Steve Greenland schrieb:
> I'd bet that very few people mess much with the default runlevels, and
> I'd further bet that most who do end up with something very similar to
> the LSB proposed system.
On PCs I'm fine with the setup we have now, and IMO it's just as
easy to rename some links in rc
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 05:28:01PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 03-Jul-01, 17:50 (CDT), Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >
> > the benifit is leaving what all 4 of those runlevels do solely up to
> > YOU not some
On 03-Jul-01, 17:50 (CDT), Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> the benifit is leaving what all 4 of those runlevels do solely up to
> YOU not some so called standards body.
So we should get rid of the FHS as well? Perha
Matti Airas writes:
> I don't know about xdm, but there certainly are many daemons both
> existing and imaginable, that would benefit from running only when X is.
Then have them find out if X is running. Checking the runlevel is not a
reliable way to do that.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jo
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 03:53:57PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> so this runlevel business is soley about X. fine, i can think of NO
> daemon that relies on xdm being running off hand. certianly not
> enough for you to dictate to me how i setup my runlevels.
I don't know about xdm, but there ce
> "Dave" == Dave Sherohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> You may have 4 identical runlevels and I may have 4 identical
Dave> runlevels, but debian's policy leaves it up to the admin to
Dave> decide what each runlevel means. If LSB makes proclamations on
Dave> the meaning of various runlev
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 03:06:24PM -0400, Steven Smolinski wrote:
> You have to edit the runlevels now, why would you care about having to
> edit the runlevels after they were made to match the LSB? That, at
> least, buys some compatibility.
...which goes right out the window as soon as you edit
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 07:29:28PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> The reason why the run levels are specified was to handle cases where
> An LSB application may wish to have some kind of daemon which is only
> running when X11/xdm is running.
name 5.
> Now, we could have added yet another leve
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:50:08PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >
> > As a specific question: what is the big deal over the uid? I don't want
> > to force it on existing systems, but I don't see how changing it for new
> > installs
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:50:08PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >
> > Ditto runlevels: of course we aren't going to mess with existing
> > setups, but I personally would rather the defaults were what was in
> > the LSB: the benefit
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> As a specific question: what is the big deal over the uid? I don't want
> to force it on existing systems, but I don't see how changing it for new
> installs is that big a compromise. Ditto runlevels: of course we aren't
> going
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:40:05PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> As a specific question: what is the big deal over the uid? I don't want
> to force it on existing systems, but I don't see how changing it for new
> installs is that big a compromise.
It effectively makes uid 1 a second root accoun
On 03-Jul-01, 02:37 (CDT), Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maybe you didn't hear the first time
>
> Who cares!
Maybe you didn't notice: You are not the sole arbiter of what Debian
does or does not choose to support.
> i think debian will support the lsb to the point where it does not
Dear all,
As the discussion progrsses i'd like to add my view to yours. First i'd like
to state that LBS is a good thing in general. It will allow us to
consolidate the considerable force of programmers If anyone wishes to make
this kind of effort, i will support it by means of constructive commen
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 10:30:21AM +0200, Holger Rauch wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > i think debian will support the lsb to the point where it does not
> > require compromising our quility and policy.
>
> In what respect does the LSB compromise Debian
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 01:47:06AM -0700, der.hans wrote:
> Do we want to be isolationists and not support ( includes in the making
> thereof ) standards?
Jason made some good efforts, and it sounds like it didn't accomplish much.
> I hope the LSB will require other dists to produce a quality, s
Am 03. Jul, 2001 schwäzte Holger Rauch so:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > i think debian will support the lsb to the point where it does not
> > require compromising our quility and policy.
>
> In what respect does the LSB compromise Debian quality and policy?
Genau.
>From: "Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Me <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>reference.com> writes
>>> When I've mentioned about incompabilities between
>>> distros then I've mentioned about not only packaging
>>> format. I can only repeat that you expect to much if you
Hi!
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
> [...]
> i think debian will support the lsb to the point where it does not
> require compromising our quility and policy.
In what respect does the LSB compromise Debian quality and policy?
Regards,
Holger
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 08:40:16PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> use Debian if Debian opts not to support the LSB. Perhaps they'll
> decide to use Mandrake, or Red Hat, or some other distribution
> instead.
maybe you didn't hear the first time
Who cares!
> Since I've only recently switched to
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 12:34:31PM -0600, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> It's not anti-commercial, but it's not pro-commercial either. It's
> unfortunate that people spend so much time worrying about whether GNU/Linux
> or Free Software is "good for business" in the sense of selling commercial
>
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:08:04AM +0200, Martin F. Krafft wrote:
> > 1) A transparent way to install LSB-compliant rpms in Debian is
> > implemented. Preferably one should be able to install rpms with 'dpkg'
> > command line tool, although an automatic format transform with 'alien'
> > could be pe
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Me <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
reference.com> writes
>> When I've mentioned about incompabilities between
>> distros then I've mentioned about not only packaging
>> format. I can only repeat that you expect to much if you
>> think that common packaging format is the only prob
Am 02. Jul, 2001 schwäzte Holger Rauch so:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, der.hans wrote:
> > Yes, the RPM package management tools have always really, really
> > sucked.
>
> As far as I understand, the LSB only states that the archive format
> is supposed to be RPM in the future. Whether tools are bad
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 11:37:49AM -0500, Me wrote:
> If this is all jokes piled on my original (the above is lifted
> from the LSB mission statement), then, well, ya got me.
>
> If instead I'm just getting myself into trouble, well, sorry!
Heh. This was my liking the statement and not realizing
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 01:07:09AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > The goal is to develop and promote a set of standards
> > > that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions
> > > and enable software applications to run on any compliant
> > > Linux system.
> >
>
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 01:07:09AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > The goal is to develop and promote a set of standards
> > that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions
> > and enable software applications to run on any compliant
> > Linux system.
>
> That's a nic
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 05:57:21PM -0500, Me wrote:
> I totally agree with you. There's a LOT more to cross distro
> compatibility than the package format and manager! A
> whole heck of a lot!!
You do realize that there is a lot more in the LSB than package
formats... right?
--
Tom
"The chief d
Hi!
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, der.hans wrote:
> [...]
> Yes, the RPM package management tools have always really, really
> sucked.
> [...]
As far as I understand, the LSB only states that the archive format
is supposed to be RPM in the future. Whether tools are bad or not, does
not necessarily have
Am 30. Jun, 2001 schwäzte Sean 'Shaleh' Perry so:
> RPM is not inherently bad. RH (and others) simply do not have a common
> standards set that must be followed like Debian does. There are a few
> places where each format (rpm and deb) surpass the other. However most of
Anyone want to summaris
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 04:16:48PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> Debian is working with a group from RH and elsewhere on a interchangeable
> packaging system, but it is a ways off.
>
This is the real answer. LSB has compromised in a way that benefits the
most distributions. As is often
Previously Me wrote:
> The goal is to develop and promote a set of standards
> that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions
> and enable software applications to run on any compliant
> Linux system.
That's a nice description of the LSB.
Wichert.
--
__
> When I've mentioned about incompabilities between
> distros then I've mentioned about not only packaging
> format. I can only repeat that you expect to much if you
> think that common packaging format is the only problem
> of differences between distros.
>
> Please try to use something different
Mariusz Przygodzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I've mentioned about incompabilities between distros then I've mentioned
> about not only packaging format. I can only repeat that you expect to much if
> you think that common packaging format is the only problem of differences
> between di
On Sunday 01 July 2001 23:50, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mariusz Przygodzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes
>
> >On Sunday 01 July 2001 18:29, Timothy H. Keitt wrote:
> >> Instead of having, for example, WordPerfect for RedHat,
> >> WordPerfect for Debian, WordPerfect
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mariusz Przygodzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes
>On Sunday 01 July 2001 18:29, Timothy H. Keitt wrote:
>> Instead of having, for example, WordPerfect for RedHat,
>> WordPerfect for Debian, WordPerfect for YourDistributionHere, you simply
>> have WordPerfect for LSB.
>
> "Sean" == Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> IMNSHO the LSB seriously erred on this, the .deb format makes
>> far more sense as a baseline package format standard then rpm
>> for the simple reason that the .deb format isn't really a
>> format, its just an ar a
On Sunday 01 July 2001 22:25, Joey Hess wrote:
> Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
> > I am sorry but it will be not work in this case because you may have WP
> > for LSB for RH vX, WP for LSB for Debian vX etc. etc (every time the
> > same version of WP).
>
> The LSB mandates that specific versions of sha
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 07:34:05PM +0200, Viktor Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> And that's why I find it good, that Debian uses a different format from
> RPM. There's simply no risk for me to install a package that hoses up
> my system integrity. With DEB I'm forced to go the apt-get route. I
> can downl
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 11:34:15AM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> It does include a References: header.
Indeed the message did, my bad. Someone else pointed out that the
threading worked fine in mutt for him. So perhaps it's just broken on
my side.
Cheers,
Joost
Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
> I am sorry but it will be not work in this case because you may have WP for
> LSB for RH vX, WP for LSB for Debian vX etc. etc (every time the same version
> of WP).
The LSB mandates that specific versions of shared libraries be
installed (right down to the symbols th
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Matti Airas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 11:57:17PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > dpkg -s
> >
> > you really should rtfm...
>
> Well, thank you for suggesting so kindly. The '-s' switch does exactly
> what I want, but the manual page didn't even slightly hint of it.
>
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:08:04AM +0200, Martin F. Krafft wrote:
> you can for example extract a .deb on a stock slackware
> system, not true of rpm. (unless slackware started including rpm in
> the base since i last looked..)
Slackware comes with RPM
On Sunday 01 July 2001 18:29, Timothy H. Keitt wrote:
> Instead of having, for example, WordPerfect for RedHat,
> WordPerfect for Debian, WordPerfect for YourDistributionHere, you simply
> have WordPerfect for LSB.
I am sorry but it will be not work in this case because you may have WP for
LSB f
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> RPM is not inherently bad. RH (and others) simply do not have a common
> standards set that must be followed like Debian does.
And that's why I find it good, that Debian uses a different format from
RPM. There's simply no risk for me to install a package that hoses
Matti Airas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 04:16:48PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> > # apt-get install rpm
> > # rpm -i --nodeps foo.rpm
>
> Uh, wouldn't that be horribly dangerous, as it would bypass dpkg
> altogether? Alien would probably be a safer choice...
That's the reason I go
Assuming your not trolling... what you need to understand is that the
LSB is really misnamed. It should be called LBPCE (Linux Bindary Package
Compatibility Environment). Its entire purpose is to provide software
vendors a single system specification to which they can release binary
packages. Inste
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joost Kooij) writes:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 11:16:28AM +0800, Lamer wrote:
> > However, Microsoft do have good
> > products (like this Outlook express i'm using).
>
> For one, it does't include any In-Reply-To: headers when you reply to a
> message in a discussion. So you
Joost Kooij wrote:
> > However, Microsoft do have good
> > products (like this Outlook express i'm using).
>
> For one, it does't include any In-Reply-To: headers when you reply to a
> message in a discussion. So your messages are not shown as part of the
> discussion thread in my mutt.
I'v
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 12:05:24PM +0200, Joost Kooij wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 11:16:28AM +0800, Lamer wrote:
> > However, Microsoft do have good
> > products (like this Outlook express i'm using).
>
> For one, it does't include any In-Reply-To: headers when you reply to a
> message in a
also sprach Ethan Benson (on Sat, 30 Jun 2001 11:57:17PM -0800):
> there is no need for us to follow herd (not hurd) mentality here.
exactly. just because of debian restrictive policy do i think that the
other dists have a lot of work to do. my problem with redhat & co. is
that they are really goi
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 11:16:28AM +0800, Lamer wrote:
> Yes, Debian is always conforming to standard, but i hate somebody who
> make a standard which is ourageous, like microsoft. (the kind "IE4.0 HTML"
> is a very good example illustrating it).
>
> However, Microsoft do have good
> products (lik
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 11:22:35AM +0300, Matti Airas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 11:57:17PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> > dpkg -s
> >
> > you really should rtfm...
>
> Well, thank you for suggesting so kindly. The '-s' switch does exactly
> what I want, but the manual page didn't even s
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 11:22:35AM +0300, Matti Airas wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 11:57:17PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > dpkg -s
>
> Well, thank you for suggesting so kindly. The '-s' switch does exactly
> what I want, but the manual page didn't even slightly hint of it.
dpkg -s |
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 11:57:17PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> dpkg -s
>
> you really should rtfm...
Well, thank you for suggesting so kindly. The '-s' switch does exactly
what I want, but the manual page didn't even slightly hint of it.
> since when did we give a damn about commercial environ
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 10:39:02AM +0300, Matti Airas wrote:
> tells whether a specific package is installed. rpm -qi
dpkg -l, dpkg -s
> gives info about the package, -ql lists the files and so on.
dpkg -L
> dpkg -l , however, gives a nasty, bastardized formatted
> output, which always seems
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 04:16:48PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> # apt-get install rpm
> # rpm -i --nodeps foo.rpm
Uh, wouldn't that be horribly dangerous, as it would bypass dpkg
altogether? Alien would probably be a safer choice...
> Debian is working with a group from RH and elsewhere o
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:08:04AM +0200, Martin F. Krafft wrote:
> i must admit that i am not particularly down with RPM, but the time
> that i had to use it i remember as horrible.
> in fact, AFAIK, RPM surely provide dependencies, but DEB has more -
> suggestions, and best of all, classes (i.e
eh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matti Airas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; ; "Lamer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: Time to fight for our beloved DEB format!
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
ux.dyn.dhs.org (change FOUR letter)
upload something before downloading, or your class C IP banned.
----- Original Message -
From: "Matti Airas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lamer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ;
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: Time to fight for our beloved DEB format!
>
> these are not good reasons. proprietary software developers from what
> ive seen make the WORST packages of anyone, even the crap you find in
> /contrib directories. LSB would have been far better off defining
> .tar.gz as the package format, and that proprietary crap go in its own
> directo
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 04:43:32PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> I agree with you 100% -- except you left out a few points which explain how
> they made the decision.
>
> a) there are 3 established dists that use rpm plus numerous small ones
so? *ALL* dists include ar, tar and gzip.
> b)
> IMNSHO the LSB seriously erred on this, the .deb format makes far more
> sense as a baseline package format standard then rpm for the simple
> reason that the .deb format isn't really a format, its just an ar
> archive with gzipped tarballs! those formats are nearly the oldest
> *real* standards
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:08:04AM +0200, Martin F. Krafft wrote:
>
> sure, that would be a possiblity, but rather than merging and going
> with redhat (come on, they are walking micro$oft footsteps), DEB is
> very powerful and can easily exist by itself. a little
> cross-compatibility is needed,
>
> What I would like to see, in the light of LSB, would be that
>
> 1) A transparent way to install LSB-compliant rpms in Debian is
> implemented. Preferably one should be able to install rpms with 'dpkg'
> command line tool, although an automatic format transform with 'alien'
> could be perform
also sprach Matti Airas (on Sat, 30 Jun 2001 11:33:01PM +0300):
> While I agree that a million flies may be wrong, as far as I have
> understood, there are no significant functional differences between
> dpkg and rpm. Package dependencies may be declared explicitly in rpm
> as well, as well as func
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 11:33:01PM +0300, Matti Airas wrote:
>
> 2) Assuming that I am not misinformed about the functional
> compatibility of dpkg and rpm, a LONG TERM goal for transforming
> Debian to rpm base is issued. This would include adding rpm support
> for all Debian package management t
Frankly, I disagree with the subject. LSB allows the distribution to
use a different (i.e. dpkg) packaging format than rpm. More
importantly, rpm is the packaging format used by every other
significant Linux distribution. While I agree that a million flies may
be wrong, as far as I have understood,
http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/swinstall.html
--k h a o s * lamernew name, new look, new
ftp:linux.dyn.dhs.org (change FOUR letter)upload something before
downloading, or your class C IP banned.
79 matches
Mail list logo
