Hi,
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:29:47PM +0200, Xuan Baldauf wrote:
>
> > And there is stuff packaged as Debian packages instead. No big deal ---
> > the whole advantage of open source is that you can take stuff built
> > for one distribution and run it on another if you want.
>
> Sadly, this is not always true.
Precisely why the LSB and FHS are so important.
> Take SuSE and RedHat together as an example: I
> patch, etc. But when I want to upgrade glibc, some things (like
> /usr/share/i18n/charmaps/ISO-8859-1) are owned by glibc on red hat systems
> while they are owned by localedb on my SuSE system.
A distribution is *defined* as a pre-packaged collection of core
components. The whole point is to be able to get a consistent set of
core libraries and binaries from a single vendor who can make some
assurances about consistent packaging and configuration of those
components. If you go too far down the standards path you basically
force all distributions to be the same, and mandating the ability to
pick-and-mix glibc packages from different distributions sounds like
a step too far to me.
The important debate is really whether applications and third-party stuff
are portable.
--Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:25 EST