| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
curtis119
Bodhisattva
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 2160
Location: Toledo, Ohio,USA, North America, Earth, SOL System, Milky Way, The Universe, The Cosmos, and Beyond.
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Q-collective wrote: | Hmm, an LSB USE flag might not be a terrible bad idea actually.
Any dev view on this? |
This will never happen. Like I've been saying, the devs have no real incentive to make Gentoo LSB compliant other than a few things here and there, like File System Hiearchy. In order to be truly LSB compliant you would have to use RPM as the package manager for one thing, plus you would be limited to a certain version of GCC and what cflags you could use etc etc etc ...
If anyone did bother to try it would be more correct to make it a /usr/portage/profile/ARCH-lsb (or something like that). A USE flag wouldn't be good because apps don't come with --enable-lsb-compliance as a configure flag (which is what USE flags are for - to choose compile time configure flags). Besides, this would take some serious coordination from a lot of devs and most (if not all) Gentoo devs pretty much despise LSB.
_________________
Gentoo: it's like wiping your ass with silk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Q-collective
Advocate
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 2071
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| curtis119 wrote: | | In order to be truly LSB compliant you would have to use RPM as the package manager for one thing, plus you would be limited to a certain version of GCC and what cflags you could use etc etc etc ... |
Oh, nevermind then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| curtis119 wrote: | | Everyone is correct, Gentoo does not claim to be LSB compliant. However, I have seen many many discussions on irc and in the various mailing lists where the devs try to be LSB compliant and, for the most part, do a good job of it. For instance, locations of Portage files was changed about ummm a year ago(?) to make it LSB compliant. |
You're confusing LSB and FHS. We don't give a rat's ass about LSB. FHS we at least vaguely go along with occasionally if it isn't too inconvenient or silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
curtis119
Bodhisattva
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 2160
Location: Toledo, Ohio,USA, North America, Earth, SOL System, Milky Way, The Universe, The Cosmos, and Beyond.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | curtis119 wrote: | | Everyone is correct, Gentoo does not claim to be LSB compliant. However, I have seen many many discussions on irc and in the various mailing lists where the devs try to be LSB compliant and, for the most part, do a good job of it. For instance, locations of Portage files was changed about ummm a year ago(?) to make it LSB compliant. |
You're confusing LSB and FHS. We don't give a rat's ass about LSB. FHS we at least vaguely go along with occasionally if it isn't too inconvenient or silly. |
FHS is part of LSB (both part of freestandards.org). And that's what I've been saying all along. You guys (devs) don't really have any good reason to follow the rest of the LSB because it doesn't bring anything of value to Gentoo and is actually kind of (A LOT) broken, like the test suite plate wrote about. I actually read most of the standard for LSB 3.0 (about half of it) so I do know a little about what I'm saying. Of course, I'm not a programmer so Ciarn understands more of what it means than I do.
_________________
Gentoo: it's like wiping your ass with silk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| curtis119 wrote: | | FHS is part of LSB (both part of freestandards.org). |
Noooooo! FHS is a separate standard. Rather than reinvent a filesystem standard, the LSB guys said "see FHS for filesystem stuff". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
curtis119
Bodhisattva
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 2160
Location: Toledo, Ohio,USA, North America, Earth, SOL System, Milky Way, The Universe, The Cosmos, and Beyond.
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | curtis119 wrote: | | FHS is part of LSB (both part of freestandards.org). |
Noooooo! FHS is a separate standard. Rather than reinvent a filesystem standard, the LSB guys said "see FHS for filesystem stuff". |
Ahhhhh, I thought they were sister projects since FHS hosts it's files at freestandards.org just like LSB. Thanks for clearing that up.
_________________
Gentoo: it's like wiping your ass with silk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
/dev/random
l33t
Joined: 26 Nov 2004
Posts: 704
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | curtis119 wrote: | | Everyone is correct, Gentoo does not claim to be LSB compliant. However, I have seen many many discussions on irc and in the various mailing lists where the devs try to be LSB compliant and, for the most part, do a good job of it. For instance, locations of Portage files was changed about ummm a year ago(?) to make it LSB compliant. |
You're confusing LSB and FHS. We don't give a rat's ass about LSB. FHS we at least vaguely go along with occasionally if it isn't too inconvenient or silly. |
I don't really care about LSB compliance, but just out of curiosity I'd like to hear the reasons why Gentoo doesn't care. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| /dev/random wrote: | | I don't really care about LSB compliance, but just out of curiosity I'd like to hear the reasons why Gentoo doesn't care. |
Clicky clicky. Also see Drepper's rant. Not that that implies that we agree with everything Drepper says either, of course, since we most certainly do not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neighborlee
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 13 Oct 2003
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Q-collective wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | | Couldn't care less about LSB. Gentoo works fine for me. I have no need to use or have interoperability with other distros... |
Nice narrowminded view. But you're right, the LSB is more of interest for developers then it is for endusers. |
Im afraid that is not true..developers made apps but end users use them, so yes lsb affects end users insofar as those apps would work on 'whatever' distro someone chooses, thus benefiting all of us because vendors no longer have to worry about supporting ten thousand brands.
I felt that point was fair to bring up, if however its moot since gentoo has no intention ( reasons stated are clear) of giving credence to the LSB, even though I find that somewhat surprising given most of the BIG named linux distros are.  ( yes I know: metadistro)
cheers
nl
_________________
http://www.heartseed.org
-One game a a time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SirYes
Apprentice
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 282
Location: Lodz, Poland
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I really like the Drepper's point of API compatibility.
And while I'm at it, the ABI compatibility is hard to achieve (to say politely) in the Linux world. Because there is no single point of blessing or control of how a Linux-based system should be built.
Yes, providing one binary package for ALL Linux distros out there is very tempting for developers who DON'T follow the open source nor free software habits, and DON'T provide access to the easily portable source code. Closed source + one binary = proprietary (cough, "MS-", cough) world. A world where there are zillions of web sites from where all can download only binary packages, oops - installers. In short: exactly a maintenance nightmare I wanted to escape from after switching to Linux.
I appreciate the original idea of LSB, but it's not the Holy Grail to pursue. At least not for Gentoo, I think.
_________________
My blog: In search for ultimate programming language |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
golding
Apprentice
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 232
Location: Adelaide / South Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought everybody was aware of the problems with a binary, lowest common denominator, complient OS that could be transported from machine to machine?
That is precisely what MS Windows is and it sucks big time because of this.
_________________
Regards, Robert
..... Some people can tell what time it is by looking at the sun, but I have never been able to make out the numbers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't RH come out a while back (last year? before?) and basically say they weren't implementing LSB, or at least a part of it? I think that says quite a bit right there (about RH & LSB).
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cchee
Apprentice
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 214
Location: NYC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
S_aIN_t
Guru
Joined: 11 May 2002
Posts: 488
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i doubt it.
_________________
"That which is overdesigned, too highly
specific, anticipates outcome; the anicipation of
outcome guatantees, if not failure, the
absence of grace."
- William Gibson, "All Tomorrow's Parties"
----
http://petro.tanreisoftware.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
allucid
Veteran
Joined: 02 Nov 2002
Posts: 1314
Location: atlanta
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We cannot be fully compliant. I belive the devs try to adhear to the standards that make sense for this distro, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark_alec
Bodhisattva
Joined: 11 Sep 2004
Posts: 6066
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| S_aIN_t wrote: | | i doubt it. |
++ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Q-collective
Advocate
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 2071
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
LSB's goal is to be a reference base for binary distro's, so one binary works on every binary distro.
As you can see, this is hardly a worth mentioning in Gentoo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
curtis119
Bodhisattva
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 2160
Location: Toledo, Ohio,USA, North America, Earth, SOL System, Milky Way, The Universe, The Cosmos, and Beyond.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I merged a duplicate thread, it starts April 25th.
_________________
Gentoo: it's like wiping your ass with silk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neighborlee
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 13 Oct 2003
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| zencoder wrote: | I think linux really needs to provide a simple way for software developers, to distribute a binary file that will run in any linux box.
Centralized package management is a great thing, specially for servers. I still think its the best way to install and update system resources and critical applications in desktops, it would be a lot better if the user could always have the choice of a ready-to-use binary file for normal applications, just in case there isn't a package aviable for its distribution of choice, and he did't have the technical knowledge to create a new package from the sources.
Linux its never going to be mainstream until this is posible, of course, this isn't the only requirement for linux to become mainstream, but I think it would help, a lot. |
your 100% right..only snobbish narrowminded people dont get that without the LSB, linux is going nowhere FAST...i'd be using gentoo myself, but I refuse ( I have a few friends that use it yes! ) to compile like all my apps just for the pleasure..my cpu h as better things to do!
gentoo is kewl we all know that, but it will ONLY be a passing interest to geeks wiithout some LSB onboard.
cheers
nl
_________________
http://www.heartseed.org
-One game a a time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enderandrew
l33t
Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 731
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yngwin wrote: | | Couldn't care less about LSB. Gentoo works fine for me. I have no need to use or have interoperability with other distros... |
Here is the problem. It isn't a matter of you swapping distros, it is a matter of developers designing apps that can work on all systems.
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
curtis119
Bodhisattva
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 2160
Location: Toledo, Ohio,USA, North America, Earth, SOL System, Milky Way, The Universe, The Cosmos, and Beyond.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enderandrew wrote: | | yngwin wrote: | | Couldn't care less about LSB. Gentoo works fine for me. I have no need to use or have interoperability with other distros... |
Here is the problem. It isn't a matter of you swapping distros, it is a matter of developers designing apps that can work on all systems. |
Well, since Gentoo can be whatever you want it to be then make it LSB compliant. It's not as hard as it sounds. Just mask all the packages in the tree that are affected to use only the ones that are LSB compliant and you will have a LSB compliant system. Basically - there's more to it than that but it gets you very close without having to change any ebuilds (as previously mentioned Gentoo already follows the FHS where applicable).
To be honest though I have never run into any binary-only apps that didn't run out-of-the-box on any of my x86 Gentoo systems. Things like the official AIM client for my niece, UT2004, Enemy Territory, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, Crossover Office, etc... All of the upstream packages Just Work(tm), even if you install them manually without using the ebuild.
So the moral of this post is that, even though Gentoo doesn't officially support it or do anything special for it, Gentoo is compatible with LSB already. At least IMHO.
_________________
Gentoo: it's like wiping your ass with silk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enderandrew
l33t
Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 731
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
People shouldn't be opposed to Linux Standards however.
If the Gentoo dev team feels they have some legitimate problems with some of the standards, then they should offer their input in future iterations of the standards.
Mind you, this thread started with the observation that LSB calls for GCC 3.4 if I recall, which Gentoo declares are unstable. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I can clue me in as to why, but this seems stupid.
Every major distro is based on GCC 4.x these days, and Gentoo still isn't read for GCC 3.4?
Many major Linux distros have two branches, stable and development. Frankly, the user community has basically put together development versions with Rockhopper/Conrad/Jackass, etc. Why not make this official and have the Gentoo developers work with guys like Cheater, Tiger, Bob P, Nxsty, etc?
Maybe we'd be better suited to catch up to the rest of the world if we were looking forward from time to time?
Quite frankly, being a source-based distro, getting the most out of the toolchain is MORE important to us.
Edit: I just finally read the official dev responses.
1 - Not wanting to use RPM. That's fine. We're a source based distro. Again, Gentoo should tell the FreeStandards guys to consider source-based distros when writing standards. Also, if Gentoo believes that they can come up with a better method of packing binary apps, then suggest a replacement for RPMs. However, given the relatively universal acceptance of RPMs (though not always perfectly standardized) it does make sense for Gentoo to support installing RPM packages out of the box, though it doesn't have to be default or recommended method for installing packages. That is what emerge/portage is for.
2 - Some of the devs reacted like the standards are fiction. They don't really exist as standards. Tell that to Red Hat Novell, AMD, Asianux, CA, Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, Mandriva, RealNetworks, Red Flag, and Turbolinux. That certainly looks like a standard to me. Being flippant doesn't help anyone.
3 - If Gentoo believes their init scripts are superior, suggest that other people adopt them. Again, work towards helping the entire community rather than looking down upon the rest of the Linux world. Honestly, I think this is one of the biggest things holding back GNU/Linux on the whole. All these different distros believe it should be done their way. That is fine. I like choice. But there do need to be certain standards to allow for a Linux app to work on all Linux distros.
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sachankara
l33t
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 696
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enderandrew wrote: | Mind you, this thread started with the observation that LSB calls for GCC 3.4 if I recall, which Gentoo declares are unstable. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I can clue me in as to why, but this seems stupid.
Every major distro is based on GCC 4.x these days, and Gentoo still isn't read for GCC 3.4? |
Latest stable gcc in portage is 3.4.6-r1, just so you know... 
_________________
Gentoo Hardened Linux 2.6.21 + svorak (Swedish dvorak) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enderandrew
l33t
Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 731
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure doesn't look that way to me.
[IMG]http://images6.theimagehosting.com/gcc.JPG[/IMG]
Care to double-check?
Edit: What? No image support?
http://gentoo-portage.com/sys-devel/gcc
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monkeh
Veteran
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 1656
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enderandrew wrote: | Sure doesn't look that way to me.
[IMG]http://images6.theimagehosting.com/gcc.JPG[/IMG]
Care to double-check?
Edit: What? No image support?
http://gentoo-portage.com/sys-devel/gcc |
Ok, so 3.3.5-r1 isn't stable all round. 3.4.6-r1 IS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
