[gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[Luis Ortega]

I was reading in LinuxToday some comments about the LSB and just about
everyone is singing praises to it.

You may get the specs at

http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/

There are a couple of topics there that would be of concern for Gentoo. One
is the topic of packaging. Packaging addresses binaries and states that RPM
is to be supported. The other is system Init.

The pages in the specs (PDF format) are not numbered. The section on
packaging start in page 229 (chapter 13) and the one on system init on page
352 (Chapter 18). I got there using the thumbnails. This is a long document,
almost 400 pages.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[Dan Armak]

On Monday 09 July 2001 19:43, you wrote:
> I was reading in LinuxToday some comments about the LSB and just about
> everyone is singing praises to it.
>
> You may get the specs at
>
> http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/
>
> There are a couple of topics there that would be of concern for Gentoo. One
> is the topic of packaging. Packaging addresses binaries and states that RPM
> is to be supported. The other is system Init.
>
> The pages in the specs (PDF format) are not numbered. The section on
> packaging start in page 229 (chapter 13) and the one on system init on page
> 352 (Chapter 18). I got there using the thumbnails. This is a long
> document, almost 400 pages.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@cvs.gentoo.org
> http://cvs.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev


With all due respect to LSB, I really don't think RPM is a Good Thing. At 
all. Actually RPM as it exists now doesn't provide the features needed to use 
it everywhere. Not only Gentoo but Slackware, Debian, etc.... don't support 
RPM - at least not as their main, preferred way of packaging.

The whole point of having many contending distros around is for differences - 
customization being an issue.

The LSB wants things to be _standard_. This means programs working 
out-of-the-box. In this case, distributed packages working on all 
distributions.

But there's already one such method that always works - configure; make; make 
install. If LSB says RPMs are better than that, it discourages practicing 
what is the heart of Portage - automatized downloading, compiling & 
installing. The LSB should push for standardized results, not for a standard 
way of achieving them.

Whoever wants a pre-compiled package will eventually be able to get it via 
Portage which already supports binary packages. Whoever gets a package from 
its home site as source is thus encouraged to write an ebuild for it and give 
back to the community. RPM availability would desatroy that - Portage and 
emerge would simply become much less important. 

Of course, choice is important. So whoever thinks RPMs are good for Gentoo 
can go ahead and modify Portage/emerge to support them. But people who still 
think actually compiling a package with the correct optimizations for you CPU 
is best <gasp> shouldn't be branded non-standard. (Or non-mainstream <gasp>).

Well, that's my opinion, for what it's worth. (phew!)

Dan Armak

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[Terje Kvernes]

Dan Armak <ermak@netvision.net.il> writes:

> But there's already one such method that always works - configure;
> make; make install. If LSB says RPMs are better than that, it
> discourages practicing what is the heart of Portage - automatized
> downloading, compiling & installing. The LSB should push for
> standardized results, not for a standard way of achieving them.

  extremely well put. 
 
> Whoever wants a pre-compiled package will eventually be able to get
> it via Portage which already supports binary packages. Whoever gets
> a package from its home site as source is thus encouraged to write
> an ebuild for it and give back to the community. RPM availability
> would desatroy that - Portage and emerge would simply become much
> less important.

  well, and there is more icky stuff:

,----[ <url: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/x12251.html > ]
| Package Dependencies
|
| Packages must depend on a dependency "lsb". They may not depend on
| other system-provided dependencies. If a package includes "Provides"
| it must only provide a virtual package name which is registered to
| that application.
`----

  at first, one might think, "great, no more looking for the oddball
  package that contains <foo>"... but in reality, you're saying.
  "bundle everything inside lsb and everything outside as well". since
  there isn't a _real_ frontend like portage or apt for standard rpm
  usage these days, every distro will need to make all their base
  packages lsb-noted, but who'll _do_ that? and what will lsb do when
  debian, slackware and Suse come along saying "hey, we want _this_ to
  be the glibc-package", but RedHat already has a "lsb-glibc"-package?

  you don't want _your_ lsb-packages to depend on other distros
  lsb-packages do you?
 
> Of course, choice is important. So whoever thinks RPMs are good for
> Gentoo can go ahead and modify Portage/emerge to support them. 

  agreed. being able to say "emerge -rpm <package>" might not be a bad
  thing, but it's still not as nice. the only _real_ reason for a
  common binary format is for the business world who want to be able
  to brand their binary package as "lsb-approved". of course, the way
  they'll do this is called "static linking", just to be on the safe
  side. I doubt we'll see this change.

> But people who still think actually compiling a package with the
> correct optimizations for you CPU is best <gasp> shouldn't be
> branded non-standard. (Or non-mainstream <gasp>).

  it's been that way for a while. personally I've used redhat, some
  debian, some suse and some slackware for some time. I like different
  things from different places, and I to love the _idea_ behind
  Gentoo, because it addresses everything I've missed. easy to
  customize, easy to upgrade, easy to admin and still state of the art
  where you want it to be so (sadly, debian doesn't make the last
  point at all).
 
> Well, that's my opinion, for what it's worth. (phew!)

  right, that means we're up to what? 0.04$? :)

-- 
Terje - adding his two cents.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[Daniel Robbins]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 08:48:53PM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:

> Of course, choice is important. So whoever thinks RPMs are good for Gentoo 
> can go ahead and modify Portage/emerge to support them. But people who still 
> think actually compiling a package with the correct optimizations for you CPU 
> is best <gasp> shouldn't be branded non-standard. (Or non-mainstream <gasp>).

Two notes: it's already possible to Gentoo Linux to generate RPMs instead of
.tbz2 files.  I'm not really interested in this functionality but it's there.
The other thing is that the LSB requires that it's possible to *install* an
RPM3 package under Gentoo Linux, which of course it is.  It doesn't mean you
need to use it as your default packaging format (that would be scary).  I don't
like the LSB as much as the FHS, but we're going to try to be as compliant with
it as we can without compromising the quality and design philosophy of Gentoo
Linux.  

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[Dan Armak]

You're absoutely right. The LSB guys aren't going to provide us with 
'software map' files or RPMs themselves. The only people likely to do that 
are the maintainers of a distro or, the developers of the program who would 
then lean (naturally) to their own preferred distro.

But why is it that whenever I want to download some package from its 
home site I see only one source tarball but more RPMs than I can count? Is 
this the 'standard' they propose? Imagine a caricature: the LSB stands 
between Redhat, SuSE and Mandrake, planting its flag with the motto: the 
center of the earth is Here. Gentoo and some other stragglers are seen on the 
horizon.

Instead of _making_ a standard, they _selected_ one. Instead of reconciling 
the differences between the distributions, they've selected a feature which 
several have and the others deprecate and said: this is Right. It is a Good 
Thing. I call this monopoly practice, and discouraging competion. I could 
almost believe Redhat bribed the LSB. Ugh.

If pursued, this policy (not only with regard to RPMs, but other similar 
propositions as well) won't 'standardize' and 'unite' anyone - it can only 
create a rift between the RPM-based distros and those that aren't.

Remember the LSB half a year or so ago? Their main accomplishment was the FHS 
(in itself a very good thing). How did they characterize themselves back 
then? (Maybe they still do.) They would provide standard specifications for 
various parts of Linux, as they did with the FHS, so that the distributions 
become interoperable! I always thought this meant I could compile - well, 
anything - even a program designed for some other Unix perhaps - and it would 
work out of the box! But is seems that the LSB, after debating for what - a 
year, more? - finally decided that the best way to ensure that would be to 
make other people compile for me, and give me binary RPMs! If it took a year 
to decide, it must have been 'stuck in committee'...

The distributions are supposed to be different - that's why they exist. 
Grassroots anti-LSB movement anyone?.. :-)

Dan Armak

On Monday 09 July 2001 22:24, you wrote:
> Dan Armak <ermak@netvision.net.il> writes:
> > But there's already one such method that always works - configure;
> > make; make install. If LSB says RPMs are better than that, it
> > discourages practicing what is the heart of Portage - automatized
> > downloading, compiling & installing. The LSB should push for
> > standardized results, not for a standard way of achieving them.
>
>   extremely well put.
>
> > Whoever wants a pre-compiled package will eventually be able to get
> > it via Portage which already supports binary packages. Whoever gets
> > a package from its home site as source is thus encouraged to write
> > an ebuild for it and give back to the community. RPM availability
> > would desatroy that - Portage and emerge would simply become much
> > less important.
>
>   well, and there is more icky stuff:
>
> ,----[ <url: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/x12251.html > ]
>
> | Package Dependencies
> |
> | Packages must depend on a dependency "lsb". They may not depend on
> | other system-provided dependencies. If a package includes "Provides"
> | it must only provide a virtual package name which is registered to
> | that application.
>
> `----
>
>   at first, one might think, "great, no more looking for the oddball
>   package that contains <foo>"... but in reality, you're saying.
>   "bundle everything inside lsb and everything outside as well". since
>   there isn't a _real_ frontend like portage or apt for standard rpm
>   usage these days, every distro will need to make all their base
>   packages lsb-noted, but who'll _do_ that? and what will lsb do when
>   debian, slackware and Suse come along saying "hey, we want _this_ to
>   be the glibc-package", but RedHat already has a "lsb-glibc"-package?
>
>   you don't want _your_ lsb-packages to depend on other distros
>   lsb-packages do you?
>
> > Of course, choice is important. So whoever thinks RPMs are good for
> > Gentoo can go ahead and modify Portage/emerge to support them.
>
>   agreed. being able to say "emerge -rpm <package>" might not be a bad
>   thing, but it's still not as nice. the only _real_ reason for a
>   common binary format is for the business world who want to be able
>   to brand their binary package as "lsb-approved". of course, the way
>   they'll do this is called "static linking", just to be on the safe
>   side. I doubt we'll see this change.
>
> > But people who still think actually compiling a package with the
> > correct optimizations for you CPU is best <gasp> shouldn't be
> > branded non-standard. (Or non-mainstream <gasp>).
>
>   it's been that way for a while. personally I've used redhat, some
>   debian, some suse and some slackware for some time. I like different
>   things from different places, and I to love the _idea_ behind
>   Gentoo, because it addresses everything I've missed. easy to
>   customize, easy to upgrade, easy to admin and still state of the art
>   where you want it to be so (sadly, debian doesn't make the last
>   point at all).
>
> > Well, that's my opinion, for what it's worth. (phew!)
>
>   right, that means we're up to what? 0.04$? :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[Dan Armak]

On Monday 09 July 2001 22:56, you wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 08:48:53PM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:
> > Of course, choice is important. So whoever thinks RPMs are good for
> > Gentoo can go ahead and modify Portage/emerge to support them. But people
> > who still think actually compiling a package with the correct
> > optimizations for you CPU is best <gasp> shouldn't be branded
> > non-standard. (Or non-mainstream <gasp>).
>
> Two notes: it's already possible to Gentoo Linux to generate RPMs instead
> of .tbz2 files.  I'm not really interested in this functionality but it's
> there. The other thing is that the LSB requires that it's possible to
> *install* an RPM3 package under Gentoo Linux, which of course it is.  It
> doesn't mean you need to use it as your default packaging format (that
> would be scary).  I don't like the LSB as much as the FHS, but we're going
> to try to be as compliant with it as we can without compromising the
> quality and design philosophy of Gentoo Linux.

I still don't think this should ever be done. Can anyone give me an example 
of a situation where installing an RPM is better than all the alternatives? 

Dan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[Daniel Robbins]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 08:52:13AM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:

> I still don't think this should ever be done. Can anyone give me an example 
> of a situation where installing an RPM is better than all the alternatives? 

For binary CDs of commercial software, RPM version 3 is the most
widely-accepted packaging format.  So it makes sense for a lot of people making
binaries for Linux, I suppose.  The Amiga SDK uses RPM to install.

For Gentoo Linux packages, I don't know.  I've never used the RPM-building
option.  It was one of the things that Achim added to Portage.  Achim?

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[Daniel Robbins]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 08:49:22AM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:

> The distributions are supposed to be different - that's why they exist. 
> Grassroots anti-LSB movement anyone?.. :-)

Yep, the LSB sucks.  It's basically a RedHat-compatibility manual.  I'm not
going to defend the LSB, but it does make sense to be as RedHat compatible as
possible without making any compromises in the design of Gentoo Linux.

It would be fun to start an anti-LSB movement, though =)

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[Jerry A!]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 12:10:36AM -0600, Daniel Robbins wrote:
: On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 08:49:22AM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:
: 
: > The distributions are supposed to be different - that's why they exist. 
: > Grassroots anti-LSB movement anyone?.. :-)
: 
: Yep, the LSB sucks.  It's basically a RedHat-compatibility manual.  I'm not
: going to defend the LSB, but it does make sense to be as RedHat compatible as
: possible without making any compromises in the design of Gentoo Linux.
: 
: It would be fun to start an anti-LSB movement, though =)

I think that it won't take much work for us to become RPM-capable (I'm
pretty sure that Achim will say we already are and all we need is a C++
stub to portage to create out /var/db structure as well as RPM's
database).

Regardless, I think we should put a carefully worded statement on the
website stating why we're doing in regards to LSB, but also how it hurts
Linux as a whole, since it doesn't create a Linux standard, but rather a
Redhat standard.

        --Jerry

name:  Jerry Alexandratos         ||  Open-Source software isn't a
phone: 703.599.6023               ||  matter of life or death...
email: jerry@thehutt.org          ||  ...It's much more important
                                  ||  than that!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[Dan Armak]

On Tuesday 10 July 2001 09:00, you wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 08:52:13AM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:
> > I still don't think this should ever be done. Can anyone give me an
> > example of a situation where installing an RPM is better than all the
> > alternatives?
>
> For binary CDs of commercial software, RPM version 3 is the most
> widely-accepted packaging format.  So it makes sense for a lot of people
> making binaries for Linux, I suppose.  The Amiga SDK uses RPM to install.

It may make sense for them, because they only have to create one standard 
version of their CD. It doesn't for the end-recipients, who may or may not 
have RPM-based systems.

I agree that _some_ sort of standard binary package distribution is needed in 
som situations. However, RPM is very unsuitable for this. It has its own 
dependency implementation, and because different distributions and even 
different versions of the same distribution need different RPMs for some 
reason, this dependency system cannot become universal. A SuSE RPM doesn't 
always work on Redhat, even though both distros are completely RPM-based and 
may run exactly the same software.

Each distro has its own dependency database. The only really suitable kind of 
binary package is a simple tarball, to be extracted either at / or the 
install location (i.e. /usr). The local dependency system (Portage, RPM, 
whatever) can then generate MD% checksus and filelists and whatever else it 
may want. Such a package would either be self-contained (static) or be 
accompanied by the required libs in the same manner. In any case RPMs can't 
be used because they depend on other RPMs and have a complex system of 
virtual provides.

In any case a binary distribution can never be as flexible and (above all) 
'standard' as a source distribution. And if the 'commercial vendors' aren't 
satisfied, they can go open source.

(I like to write long letters :-)

Dan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[Dan Armak]

On Tuesday 10 July 2001 09:10, you wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 08:49:22AM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:
> > The distributions are supposed to be different - that's why they exist.
> > Grassroots anti-LSB movement anyone?.. :-)
>
> Yep, the LSB sucks.  It's basically a RedHat-compatibility manual.  I'm not
> going to defend the LSB, but it does make sense to be as RedHat compatible
> as possible without making any compromises in the design of Gentoo Linux.
>
> It would be fun to start an anti-LSB movement, though =)


Look what just came in:
http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/2001/122679_07-09-2001.html

Quite recommended reading.

A few choice points:

"The Free Standards Group, which includes IBM, Red Hat, TurboLinux and 
Oracle, also fashioned the specification to simplify development for 
independent software vendors and corporations. The group has made Version 1.0 
of the Linux Standard Base (LSB) available." (And I wondered who could be so 
stupid as to enforce use of RPMs).

"LSB is a programmatic interface that lets vendors and in-house developers 
avoid writing multiple versions of applications for various iterations of the 
Linux platform."

"Companies used to dealing with closed source software vendors might be 
reassured by LSB."

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[Daniel Robbins]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 02:15:26PM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:

> "The Free Standards Group, which includes IBM, Red Hat, TurboLinux and 
> Oracle, also fashioned the specification to simplify development for 
> independent software vendors and corporations. The group has made Version 1.0 
> of the Linux Standard Base (LSB) available." (And I wondered who could be so 
> stupid as to enforce use of RPMs).

It sounds like someone should start the GLSG -- the Grassroots Linux Standards
Group.  

-- 
Daniel Robbins					<drobbins@gentoo.org>
President/CEO					http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.			

Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux Standard Base

[tadpol]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 10:52:58AM -0600, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 02:15:26PM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:
> > "The Free Standards Group, which includes IBM, Red Hat, TurboLinux and 
> > Oracle, also fashioned the specification to simplify development for 
> > independent software vendors and corporations. The group has made Version 1.0 
> > of the Linux Standard Base (LSB) available." (And I wondered who could be so 
> > stupid as to enforce use of RPMs).
> 
> It sounds like someone should start the GLSG -- the Grassroots Linux Standards
> Group.  

<rant>

why? linux standards are a joke.  Hell. Standards of all forms are a joke.
Go look into the details of the configure script that cames with almost
every source tarball you download.  If **ANY** of the standards were standard,
we wouldn't need a script to figure out how the system works.

Look at most any binary distribution that has existed previously, for linux or
any/all unixes.  Nearly all of them are completely self contained.  And for a
user to use them, you just set and environment variable or two, and run.

All that Standards are used for is free promotion of the company that wins.
Rarely are standards designed, the committees almost always take an existing
solution, and go "Hey look! it works! it must be a standard!"

 <grumble><grumble>

</rant>

 (someone is still a little sore from implementing posix and bsd file locking
  inside of gfs....)
-- 
Michael Tilstra                       tadpol@tadpol.org
You're just jealous because the little voices talk to me!