| 1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> >> I personally find it annoying when people fork projects, decide not to |
| 3 |
> >> maintain ABI compatibility with the original project, and then keep |
| 4 |
> >> filenames the same/etc such that the packages collide in their |
| 5 |
> >> recommended configurations. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Some people do it on purpose, with the outspoken goal of doing |
| 8 |
> > maximum harm to the original project and lock users into the fork. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> In such cases it probably would be helpful if distros talked to each |
| 11 |
> other and agreed to hack the build so that the new files would not |
| 12 |
> collide. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yes, I think that would be very helpful. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Unfortunately, my experience is that package maintainers in (all!) |
| 17 |
distros either buy into convenient but wholly untrue propaganda or |
| 18 |
simply settle for doing the same as "everyone else". |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> That then leaves the upstream package with two choices - keep their |
| 22 |
> build the same so that anybody who uses it to develop against their |
| 23 |
> library ends up with a build that doesn't work on any actual distro, |
| 24 |
> or play nice. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That is sadly a unicorn. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> A NyxOS-like approach where you just prefix EVERYTHING on the system |
| 30 |
> might also work. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Yes, this is an interesting idea, and a good way to shield users from |
| 33 |
evil. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> there wouldn't be an /etc/init.d, but rather a bazillion |
| 37 |
> /pkg/guid/etc/init.d directories or something like that |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I guess an abstraction akin to pkg-config could solve the problem. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
//Peter |
Archives