[geeks] RedHat restructure

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:

> This isn't Slackware's fault: new libraries and dependencies have been
> growing like mad for the last couple of years.  User's demand that
> stuff, and so it went in.

Funny how OpenBSD and NetBSD can fit several architectures' installers
on a single CD, with source.  But that boils down to the issue of "What
is $OS" and "What is the software the maintainers support on $OS".

> BSD did this years ago.  Everything in NetBSD is broken out now, and
> it is easier to take care of.

Yes, but:

1) In BSD, you have a -separate- file for each network interface, not
   one file with an arbitrary number of predefined slots for interface
   data.
2) The BSDs do it consistently.  Slackware only does it in a few spots.

> Personally, I wish Slackware would move fully to the NetBSD method.

It'd certainly be a lot better than sitting on the fence.

> If Suse and RedHat start getting a lot of commercial support, I'm afraid
> that a lot of software might start requiring their kind of setup files.

Yep.

> I do not like the complicated SysV /etc crap in RedDrakeSuseHat and
> Debian.

I like SysV-style init scripts better from a management point of view,
but they do tend to be an ugly mess.  I absolutely -HATE- the way
DeadRat does network interface configuration.  How many different files
do you have to touch to move a machine from one network to another?

> > I guess I'm spoiled by the BSD approach of supporting a relatively
> > small amount of software as "the OS", while letting porters or pkgsrc
> > maintainers deal with the rest of it.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.

When you install OpenBSD or NetBSD, you get:
  * A Kernel
  * Userland tools
  * (optional) Development tools
  * (optional) man pages
  * (optional) X
  * (optional) BSD-games.

That's IT.  If you want more, you can fetch it through pkgsrc/ports or
download a package.  They "support it", as in, they have made it work on
the OS, and they're actively maintaining the patches that make it work.
However, it does not pork up the installation CD.

I have seven computing architectures in my house that I actually use.
Three (PowerMac, RS/6000, and SGI) of those architectures will never
run BSD in my house, but the rest either run BSD or the vendor's OS.
Having one CD versus 15 or so is important to me because I can't always
netboot.

> My primary complaint about Slackware is the build system.  It really
> needs something better.

I haven't built Slackware from source since 4.0 or so, back when it was
x86-only and I offered (and was turned down by Patrick) to lead the port
to SPARC.

-- 
Jonathan Patschke  ) "Earth works.  That's proof positive that Mother
Elgin, TX         (   Nature isn't a suit."            --Dave McGuire