Re: Debian (was Re: [Sheflug] Re: Problem )

["Chris J/#6" <nospam [at] nccnet.co.uk>]

> 
>     Chris> The problem is apt-get has an overly-loyal and totally
>     Chris> unbending love of dependcancies. Which is a problem for
>     Chris> someone like me who does a lot of source compilation and
>     Chris> rarely uses package management.
> 
> apt-get source -b $PACKAGE && dpkg -i $PACKAGE*.deb

Fairy snuff, but doesn't solve the problem should a package not build or 
should it not detect things (I have had some programs fail to detect the 
location of OpenSSL and GTK before now) so if I want to switch on (or more 
likely off) build options.

Unless I misunderstand how the whole thing works - but that looks simply like 
a non-interactive download/config/build/install.

> 
> It's also reasonably easy to fool the package system.  You just create
> fake debian/{changelog,control} files (and maybe some other stuff) and
> use dpkg-deb to build a package out of them.  Wouldn't be hard to
> write a script to take a package name and version number and create a
> fake package that provides the features.  I only do this for XEmacs,
> though (and maybe Ghostscript starting in a few days).
 
Probably - but to me this seems to be going to extra effort to clear an 
artificial (to me) problem. Plus you then have to remember to remove the fake 
package if you zap the program from the system, lest apt-get gets itself 
confused.


> But as long as you're using vanilla sources (you wouldn't edit any of
> DJB's code, would ya?) apt-get source wins.

Nope :) But I zapped the qmail source package that debian supplied becuase it 
decided to symlink /var/qmail/* to different locations on the system. This is 
more a personal thing than owt else.

> 
>     Chris> dpkg the file manually, as dpkg *can* be told to ignore
>     Chris> dependancies.
> 
> Except that this will probably get apt upset later.
> 

Yes...but I'd say if you were going to have two package management tools, they 
should both be consistant. Allowing someone to override depeandancies with one 
tool and not the other seems to me like asking for trouble in the long run 
(especially with a novice user trying to "frig" the thing into working and one 
day wondering why apt-get won't do what its told). Or maybe I'm seeing 
problems where none exist...(or rather a case of its how you use the tools).

>     Chris> Debian uses both rcX.d and rcS.d (ie the single-user level
>     Chris> directory) to bring a machine up.
> 
> I actually like this.
> 
>     Chris> Coming from a trad. unix background, I find this rather
>     Chris> nasty - single user *should* start only *minimal* services
>     Chris> - ie, a getty and whatever system services are needed for a
>     Chris> user to actually make use of the system, and also only the
>     Chris> root FS should be mounted.
> 
> But I agree with you here.
> 

Taking both statements - yes, it seems good to have stuff common to all 
run-levels in a single directory - that way you don't have to add or remove 
something to possibly six different directories.

The bad thing is that the Debian developers chose rcS...common stuff should 
maybe have had a seperate rc directory. With maybe a rc script linked in each 
rcX.d directory that tells the rc script to start everything in rcCommon.d (or 
something). This way you could force a runlevel to ignore the common directory 
- handy for single user mode.


> Debian, unfortunately, has come a long way from its "developer's
> distro" roots (or maybe the basic concept of "developer" has
> changed).
> 

Maybe - I dunno - I've never touched Debian before and heard people going 
"ooo!" and "aah!" over its package management compared to RPM, so I thought 
I'd look at it. As I said, I could quite happily "ooo!" and "aah!" if apt-get 
wasn't so unbending about dependancies :)

> Do what's best, but I did want to explain that there are some options
> that might make things a little happier for you.
> 

Aye - I don't know how many Debian users there are on Sheflug - tends to be 
little talk about it compared to SuSE and Redhat...so thought I'd gripe and 
see if anyone could put me right :)

In the end though, the dist is what you make it, and choice, as people would 
have you believe, is a good thing...if you don't like one style, skip to a 
different one.

I think I've probably found the only things Debian has wound me up about, of 
which the package management is something that can be worked round, but the rc 
tree needs a few hacks. A few apps are going to be coming off for an upgrade 
whatever I do (exmh for one, which is a few versions old, windowmaker another).

Chris...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.