Comments on: LSB 4 http://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/04/lsb-4/ Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:51:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: nightwalker http://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/04/lsb-4/comment-page-1/#comment-1147 nightwalker Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:58:29 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=152#comment-1147 Instead of pushing RPM format as an standard, they should promote a way (by using scripts, aliases, etc) that allows any distribution to install commonly found deb, rpm and gz packages. That way any user can install most common packages from (ie. a CD cover disk) without resorting to check what distribution they have, or which revision of the package they need to choose. In other words, the distribution being the one responsible for the conversion (ie. running alien in the background to convert an rpm file and installing it with no additional user intervention). Part of the work is already underway, thanks to PackageKit, which allows a universal GUI for managing packages. But an option to install standalone packages in rpm, deb, or gz from the Internet or a disk is really needed. Instead of pushing RPM format as an standard, they should promote a way (by using scripts, aliases, etc) that allows any distribution to install commonly found deb, rpm and gz packages. That way any user can install most common packages from (ie. a CD cover disk) without resorting to check what distribution they have, or which revision of the package they need to choose. In other words, the distribution being the one responsible for the conversion (ie. running alien in the background to convert an rpm file and installing it with no additional user intervention).

Part of the work is already underway, thanks to PackageKit, which allows a universal GUI for managing packages. But an option to install standalone packages in rpm, deb, or gz from the Internet or a disk is really needed.

]]> By: The Licquia Blog » Blog Archive » Standards and Conversations, Part 1 http://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/04/lsb-4/comment-page-1/#comment-1019 The Licquia Blog » Blog Archive » Standards and Conversations, Part 1 Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:53:30 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=152#comment-1019 [...] (See also Scott James Remnant.) [...] [...] (See also Scott James Remnant.) [...]

]]> By: mpt http://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/04/lsb-4/comment-page-1/#comment-944 mpt Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:47:55 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=152#comment-944 “…A development group that decides on future direction itself and dictates that to the distributions. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s pretty much the way that the W3C works.” If the LSB is worth having at all, then maybe it would be useful to investigate how one part of the W3C has broken out of that model in the past couple of years. The XHTML 2.0 Working Group were busy reinventing HTML in a backward-incompatible, feature-meagre, and Web-hostile manner that browser vendors weren’t interested in. Mozilla, Opera, Apple, and interested volunteers began an external project (the WhatWG) to standardize HTML extensions that Web authors were wanting. The pressure built to the point that the W3C was forced to revamp the HTML charter, and later accepted the WhatWG’s work (which by now included most of a detailed specification of how to handle real-world HTML) as the base for HTML 5. In the W3C process, some new features are based closely on an experimental implementation (e.g. the canvas element from Safari, the video element from Opera), while others are invented by the editor based on evidence of real-world problems. Over time the importance of multiple interoperable implementations has increased, to the point where features may be dropped from a spec if they have not been experimentally implemented. “…A development group that decides on future direction itself and dictates that to the distributions. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s pretty much the way that the W3C works.”

If the LSB is worth having at all, then maybe it would be useful to investigate how one part of the W3C has broken out of that model in the past couple of years. The XHTML 2.0 Working Group were busy reinventing HTML in a backward-incompatible, feature-meagre, and Web-hostile manner that browser vendors weren’t interested in. Mozilla, Opera, Apple, and interested volunteers began an external project (the WhatWG) to standardize HTML extensions that Web authors were wanting. The pressure built to the point that the W3C was forced to revamp the HTML charter, and later accepted the WhatWG’s work (which by now included most of a detailed specification of how to handle real-world HTML) as the base for HTML 5.

In the W3C process, some new features are based closely on an experimental implementation (e.g. the canvas element from Safari, the video element from Opera), while others are invented by the editor based on evidence of real-world problems. Over time the importance of multiple interoperable implementations has increased, to the point where features may be dropped from a spec if they have not been experimentally implemented.

]]> By: dcbw http://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/04/lsb-4/comment-page-1/#comment-939 dcbw Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:55:12 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=152#comment-939 RPM as a file format is fine. It's the tools around RPM (like rpmbuild and rpm itself) that sort of suck. krh's razor project basically does RPM right; it's hella fast, doesn't use the rpmdb, combines yum and rpm together, and just freaking works. And it shows that RPM as a file format is actually OK, and that you _can_ build tools around it that don't suck Sergey Brin's left testicle, to quote LHB. RPM as a file format is fine. It’s the tools around RPM (like rpmbuild and rpm itself) that sort of suck. krh’s razor project basically does RPM right; it’s hella fast, doesn’t use the rpmdb, combines yum and rpm together, and just freaking works. And it shows that RPM as a file format is actually OK, and that you _can_ build tools around it that don’t suck Sergey Brin’s left testicle, to quote LHB.

]]> By: void http://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/04/lsb-4/comment-page-1/#comment-938 void Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:25:06 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=152#comment-938 PS the RPM CLUB was formed because LSB stupidly gave distributions the right to vote on format. There were more rpm distributions at the time. So current day actions are taking that big blooper into account. PS the RPM CLUB was formed because LSB stupidly gave distributions the right to vote on format. There were more rpm distributions at the time.

So current day actions are taking that big blooper into account.

]]> By: void http://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/04/lsb-4/comment-page-1/#comment-937 void Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:19:38 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=152#comment-937 Idiot at Work here. Did not read what is in LSB 4.0 at all by the sound of it. RPM has been found to be non functional by the LSB for the needs of ISV's. So LSB is providing a solution that is not dependant on any package manager out there. A netural format that will integrate into any package management system out there. RPM CLUB IS DEAD. LSB 4.0 is its grave stone. Idiot at Work here. Did not read what is in LSB 4.0 at all by the sound of it.

RPM has been found to be non functional by the LSB for the needs of ISV’s. So LSB is providing a solution that is not dependant on any package manager out there. A netural format that will integrate into any package management system out there.

RPM CLUB IS DEAD. LSB 4.0 is its grave stone.

]]> By: Jon http://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/04/lsb-4/comment-page-1/#comment-936 Jon Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:18:53 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=152#comment-936 Regardless of how widespread RPM is or was, it's a horrible format, the tool is in some kind of bizarre quasi-fork between RH and the original author, RPMs authored for one OS can not just be dropped into another RPM-supporting one, so it isn't cross-distro in anything but layout. In short, it makes no sense to base a spec that should last any length of time into the future on something so shoddy today. Regardless of how widespread RPM is or was, it’s a horrible format, the tool is in some kind of bizarre quasi-fork between RH and the original author, RPMs authored for one OS can not just be dropped into another RPM-supporting one, so it isn’t cross-distro in anything but layout. In short, it makes no sense to base a spec that should last any length of time into the future on something so shoddy today.

]]> By: taggart http://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/04/lsb-4/comment-page-1/#comment-935 taggart Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:19:56 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=152#comment-935 Working on the LSB is a thankless job. For every person screaming "stop inventing solutions for things that aren't common practice!" you have 3 others yelling "how can I just produce one package that will work everywhere?!". Then on top of that you have a lot of FUD going around from people who really don't understand the constraints the workgroup is under (mainly just piling on beating the dead horse issues). When I worked on the LSB I tried to promote a middle way to keep both of the above groups happy by defining the LSB Acceptance Criteria, http://www.linuxfoundation.org/futures/criteria/index.html and tracked proposed candidates according to that criteria http://www.linuxfoundation.org/futures/candidates/all-groupstatusname.html (extremely out of date, it wasn't maintained after I left over a year ago) only to have it overridden in the interest of progress. The LSB/FHS are still needed, but I got sick of fighting those battles and gave up. To quote Keith Packard, "Standards? I'll be in the bar" Working on the LSB is a thankless job. For every person screaming “stop inventing solutions for things that aren’t common practice!” you have 3 others yelling “how can I just produce one package that will work everywhere?!”. Then on top of that you have a lot of FUD going around from people who really don’t understand the constraints the workgroup is under (mainly just piling on beating the dead horse issues).

When I worked on the LSB I tried to promote a middle way to keep both of the above groups happy by defining the LSB Acceptance Criteria,
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/futures/criteria/index.html
and tracked proposed candidates according to that criteria
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/futures/candidates/all-groupstatusname.html
(extremely out of date, it wasn’t maintained after I left over a year ago)
only to have it overridden in the interest of progress. The LSB/FHS are still needed, but I got sick of fighting those battles and gave up.

To quote Keith Packard, “Standards? I’ll be in the bar”

]]> By: • Linux Haters Blog: Rants and Laughs • Blog Archive • fuzion http://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/04/lsb-4/comment-page-1/#comment-934 • Linux Haters Blog: Rants and Laughs • Blog Archive • fuzion Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:04:40 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=152#comment-934 [...] S&#99o&#116&#116 James Remnan&#116 on why LSB w&#105ll co&#110t&#105&#110ue to suck e&#118e&#110 at &#118ers&#105o&#110 4. [...] [...] S&#99o&#116&#116 James Remnan&#116 on why LSB w&#105ll co&#110t&#105&#110ue to suck e&#118e&#110 at &#118ers&#105o&#110 4. [...]

]]> By: nenoblog » Blog Archive » LSB 4 doesn’t fix things any better than LSB 1, 2 or 3 did. http://www.netsplit.com/2008/08/04/lsb-4/comment-page-1/#comment-933 nenoblog » Blog Archive » LSB 4 doesn’t fix things any better than LSB 1, 2 or 3 did. Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:17:49 +0000 http://www.netsplit.com/?p=152#comment-933 [...] mentioned elsewhere, LSB 4 is due out soon, and won’t really make a lick of difference when it comes to improving [...] [...] mentioned elsewhere, LSB 4 is due out soon, and won’t really make a lick of difference when it comes to improving [...]

]]>