On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Andrew McNabb <amcn...@mcnabbs.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:08:17AM -0700, Robert LeBlanc wrote: > > > > As far as Ubuntu not giving back to the community. I would say this is > > false. Many times looking through Debian's PTS, I see bug reports and > > patches submitted by Ubuntu users. The Ubuntu community also tries to get > > packages in Debian where it fits Debian's model. > > Ubuntu indeed contributes some bug fixes back (which is great). > However, the number of Ubuntu-originated bug fixes is quite small > considering its market share, and the number of big contributions is > negligible. > > I still consider some contribution a contribution. Sometimes I feel like my patches are worthless, but they are still a contribution. I don't think you disagree with this, just pointing it out. > > > I've worked with RHEL, CENTOS, etc and my biggest grip is there is no > > structure. An RPM can choose to put things anywhere (/etc, /opt, /usr, > /var, > > etc). Debian has a strict file structure that every package must follow > > (config in /etc, user modified data in /var/lib/, etc) for me it makes it > > much easier to manage my servers because I can 'expect' a certain level > of > > uniformity. > > Debian's file structure is actually my biggest complaint. Most > distributions try to follow the file locations from upstream. Debian > seems to frequently mangle file locations, which makes it harder to > follow documentation from upstream projects. Apache configuration > files, for example, are completely mangled in Debian. My opinion is > that it would have been better for Debian to work with Apache to address > their concerns about the layout of the configuration files. > > I agree that FHS compliance is important, but I prefer the practice of > working with upstream whenever possible. Frankly, I can't think of any > major FHS violations in Fedora right now (other than polkit, which is > being fixed). Uniformity within one distro is important, but uniformity > between distributions is also important. > I think upstream is in a pickle in this regard. If they do something the Debian way, then it breaks the Gentoo way, etc. Most developers put things in their own space so it doesn't conflict with any distro's way of doing things. Most projects allow parts to be compiled for different locations (lib, bin, man, etc), so it fits with most distros. When on Debian, I usually look in /usr/share/doc/<package-name> for any Debian specific instructions or changes. Documentation can be a little more difficult to follow, but for the most part it is that Debain has broken up configs into smaller files. "Translating" the locations gets easier the more familiar with how Debian breaks up the files. I also love Debian's config for Apache. It lets me easily enable/disable sites or modules without having to comment out large sections of code in a huge config file. It also allows things like MediaWiki or Drupal to drop in without having to mess with my configs or the main Apache config. Like I've said, it works very well for me, others may not like it. Robert LeBlanc Life Sciences & Undergraduate Education Computer Support Brigham Young University
-------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info (unsubscribe here): http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
