lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: FatELF patches...

> So why exactly do we want FatELF. It was obsoleted in the early 1990s
> when architecture handling was introduced into package managers.

I'm not minimizing your other points by trimming down to one quote. Some
of it I already covered, but mostly I suspect I'm talking way too much, so
I'll spare everyone a little. I'm happy to address your other points if
you like, though, even the one where you said I was being desperate. :)

Most of your points are "package managers solve this problem" but they
simply do not solve all of them.

Package managers are a _fantastic_ invention. They are a killer feature
over other operating systems, including ones people pay way too much money
to use. That being said, there are lots of places where using a package
manager doesn't make sense: experimental software that might have an
audience but isn't ready for wide adoption, software that isn't
appropriate for an apt/yum repository, software that distros refuse to
package but is still perfectly useful, closed-source software, and
software that wants to work between distros that don't have
otherwise-compatible rpm/debs (or perhaps no package manager at all).

I'm certain I'm about to get a flood of replies that say "you can make a
cross-distro-compatible RPM if you just follow these steps" but that
completely misses the point. Not all software comes from yum, or even from
an .rpm, even if most of it _should_. This isn't about replacing or
competing with apt-get or yum.

I'm certain if we made a Venn diagram, there would be an overlap. But
FatELF solves different problems than package managers, and in the case of
ia32 compatibility packages, it helps the package manager solve its
problems better.

--ryan.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-02 03:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site