Subject: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-9-19-8:23
From: "Linux Activists" <[email-masked]>
To: "Linux-Activists" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 11:44:49 +0200

Topics:
	 Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-9-19-1:26

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steven R Clark <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Linux-Activists - DOC Channel digest. 93-9-19-1:26
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 05:42:01 +0200

----- Begin Included Message -----

Topics:
	 on standard distributions

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: on standard distributions
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 21:10:46 +0200

[I'm not cross-posting to FSSTND because I haven't been reading it.]

Specialized distributions have their place. Some people want a bells-n-whistles
system, some want bare-bones. For instance, I want everything on my development
system, but as little as possible on the system I am using as a dedicated
network router. Both are "Linux" systems.

The best solution would be for a "Standard Linux Distribution" to be used
as a base, or perhaps a reference, by people who create distributions such
as SLS and Slackware. However, having the filesystem standard available may
be enough for them, since if they don't follow the standard, all of this
documentation that you are producing will not be accurate. Uh-Oh, is this
a chicken-egg problem?

At some point I want to create a specialized distribution for amateur
radio operators. Others will want to create specialized distributions
for their own vertical markets. It would be nice if there were a
standard distribution that I could use as the base for that in such a
way that all of the LDP documentation would remain accurate and I would
only have to add an overview and documentation for the applications of
my particular vertical market.

	Bruce Perens

-
Bruce Perens KN6TX/AE [email-masked] 510-215-3502

----- End Included Message -----

With this, I thoroughly agree. I would also strongly recommend a 'Standard'
FileSystem layout so that extra packages go into the same places, this will
enable small, specialized packages to be put together and installed just as any
other without problems finding libraries, includes files, or other dependancies.

I am having a really hard time compiling all the little odds and ends I want and
occasionally need because includes and libraries are all over the place!

There is little in the way of standardisation in installation for small
packages, some untarr into full paths, others into their own directory tree,
and yet others just dump into the current directory (none of this is mentioned
in the LSM listings!). I spend a lot of time checking each package, then trying
to hack the Makefiles to get the things to compile! - I cannot for the life of
me get xrolo, or xrolotool to compile, despite having just about everything
one can get for Linux on my system already ...

Just some rantings from a Un*x Newbie who wishes things were more organised.

                        Steven R. Clark, BSc(Hons).
  <=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=>
   I am returning this otherwise good typing paper to you because someone has
          printed gibberish all over it and put your name at the top.
                  -- English Professor, Ohio University
   <=-|-=>    <=-|-=>    <=-|-=>    <=-|-=>    <=-|-=>    <=-|-=>    <=-|-=>  

------------------------------

End of DOC Digest
*****************
-------