Linux-Development-Sys Digest #886, Volume #7 Sun, 21 May 00 05:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
How to find path to a shared module ("Jeff Ostrin")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ("Andrew N. McGuire ")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Horst von Brand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 20 May 2000 22:06:47 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>You need them IF you have installed a modern distribution that
>>already includes the thing you are updating, and you want
>
> Who said anything about 'updating'. I'm talking about the
> 'new' stuff I compile. I typically don't bother with source
> for more stable projects.
I just haven't run into much 'new stuff' for a while that
wasn't available as an rpm, with updates also likely.
>>You do avoid it if you wait till someone else does it and
>>then just install the packaged version. If you have some
>
> Is this supposed to be describing binary packages or
> makefiles, as I've always thought of reasonably
> complete source packages as serving this purpose.
Things packaged as rpms are nearly always available as source
rpms as well (the rpm tool packages the source as well as the
binary). If the binary doesn't work because of library conflicts
you can often get a working copy by rebuilding the source
rpm - or if you need a local patch you can add it.
>>reason to need a fix the day a patch is out or need some
>>local changes until the next release, you need the futzing
>>but with the rpm scheme even most of the futzing is automated.
>
> Where I've found rpm most useful are those projects that
> seem to be made of a million or so parts and doing a
> 'build World' is a manual process.
That too, but in almost every case there is going to be a new,
improved version out within 6 months or less - maybe tomorrow.
If you use the 'packaged' version, a simple update command is
the most it takes to keep up.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:16:15 GMT
On 20 May 2000 22:06:47 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>>
>> Where I've found rpm most useful are those projects that
>> seem to be made of a million or so parts and doing a
>> 'build World' is a manual process.
>
>That too, but in almost every case there is going to be a new,
>improved version out within 6 months or less - maybe tomorrow.
>If you use the 'packaged' version, a simple update command is
>the most it takes to keep up.
...as would be 'make World' if there were a complete package.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 20 May 2000 22:21:44 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>It requires your software to be GPL, if you use the Qt Free Edition.
>>>>Naturally, if you don't like that, don't use Qt.
>>>
>>> This alone makes the QPL more restrictive than the LGPL.
>>
>>Of course. GPL advocates were the ones who pushed for this
>>change and they don't like the LGPL much.
>
> Bullshit.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 20 May 2000 22:28:37 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Where I've found rpm most useful are those projects that
>>> seem to be made of a million or so parts and doing a
>>> 'build World' is a manual process.
>>
>>That too, but in almost every case there is going to be a new,
>>improved version out within 6 months or less - maybe tomorrow.
>>If you use the 'packaged' version, a simple update command is
>>the most it takes to keep up.
>
> ...as would be 'make World' if there were a complete package.
After getting the source, configuring, etc. If the project is
worth running there is a pretty good chance that it will be
added to the next RedHat base or powertools CD making the update
just a matter of course and no longer even a special case.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:59:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
' In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
' David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
' >
' >' And as a result of SuSE predating RedHat, SuSE rpms are incompatible
' >' with RedHat ones :-( I wish they'd switch to dpkg, but I bet there would
' >' be incompatibilities with Debian there too - for the same reasons -
' >' maintaining backwards compatibility breaks sidewards compatibility :-(
' >
' >It is the RPM BS that has caused me to abandon that format whenever
' >possible. Instead, I prefere to install software from source.
' >Packages that conform to the ./configure, make, make install mantra
' >are easy to build and put where you want them.
'
' You left out the dozen obligatory arguments to ./configure that
' are different for every package to make it interoperate with
' the rest of your setup. Even then it is impossible to use
' this method alone to set things up so the next update from
' the stock distribution (that by now has the fixes you added plus
' more) will correctly replace your intermediate fix.
Most of the time, I've not passed _any_ arguments to configure. I did
for Qt and for KDE. However, those were not specific to my distro
(SuSE 6.2) which I have been hacking away from its original
configuration. It is also not a big deal to specify --prefix.
I am no longer interested in distribution specific sources anyway. I
am trying to move away from that. One of the reasons I have been
learning Linux is so that I am in charge of my system configuration.
Granted, when I first started out, SuSE was great. It allowed me to
set up my system without knowing much of anything. I still think SuSE
or some other good package is the way to go for a beginner. However,
I have started to outgrow it. And the natural distribution medium for
Un*x is source. This doesn't stop the packagers like SuSE or RedHat
from patching and compiling the source for their own taste. But it
does allow you to become independent of the packager you originally
choose if you decide to strike out on your own. You also don't have
to make the steep climb that diylinux would require from you.
While my system is still mostly SuSE, it is no longer pure SuSE. I've
already diverged in some non trivial ways. OTOH, SuSE 6.4 does now
provide some of the things I already have on my system, ie GCC 2.95.2,
libc 2.0.7, etc. I'm evolving towards a generic GNU/Linux.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 04:45:55 GMT
On 20 May 2000 22:21:44 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>>It requires your software to be GPL, if you use the Qt Free Edition.
>>>>>Naturally, if you don't like that, don't use Qt.
>>>>
>>>> This alone makes the QPL more restrictive than the LGPL.
>>>
>>>Of course. GPL advocates were the ones who pushed for this
>>>change and they don't like the LGPL much.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
That makes it the position of the Free Software Foundation
not of the various groups that opposed the original licence
including those that made their own alternative...
...licenced LGPL.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Jeff Ostrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,de.comp.os.unix.linux.misc,linux.dev.c-programming
Subject: How to find path to a shared module
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 22:31:01 -0700
I'm working on a project building a shared module. When distributed, I of
course don't know the path to the install directory, but I need to know the
path inside my module.
Is there a system call I can make inside my module to get the path to my
module?
Thanks
Jeff
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
From: "Andrew N. McGuire " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 01:55:56 -0500
On Sat, 20 May 2000, Full Name wrote:
+On 18 May 2000 12:19:01 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+wrote:
+
+>
+>: There's just no excuse for not having an adequate installer. We have
+>
+>The installers I have are very adequate (make and tar). And from what
+>I've seen the distros have excellenet installers too. I can understand
+
+You can't be serious. Make and tar are "installers"???
In the sense that you can use both of them to install software, yes.
anm
--
/*-------------------------------------------------------.
| Andrew N. McGuire |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
`-------------------------------------------------------*/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 07:21:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
> >Here are some requirements for a killer app:
> >1. Lots of people have to use it.
> 60% marketshare of the server part of THE current
> killer microcomputer app.
I believe you're snipping or ignoring the part where I write that
the aforementioned "lots of people" can't come from a specific market,
unless that market is itself significant.
So, 60% of 5% of computer users is not a lot of people. And the
grammar of your statement eludes me somewhat, so it may actually be
60% of 5% of 20%. (Unless you think that more than 5% of computers -
bear in mind we're counting *all* computers capable of running Linux,
here - run a WWW server? Or that computers - again, all computers
which can run Linux - spend more than 20% of their (real) time on the
WWW?)
> With a 60%, I would imagine it does.
On an unrelated note, is Apache really 60% of the WWW server market?
Do you know how many of them are on Linux boxes? (I ask because I
didn't think *Unix* had a 60% share of the WWW server (OS) market.)
> >of computer users have not installed Apache, and never *will* install
> >Apache, no matter that it's the best thing since sliced bread.
> True, however the VAST MAJORITY of computer users USE
> Apache on a daily basis.
Am I mistaken, or did I write that use via a Web browser is a
completely different issue?
Figures on how many hits Apache servers get per day are useful for
determining their reliability and performance, not their popularity.
Because users are generally unaware of what Web server [daemon] their
browser is accessing, there is zero correlation between a user's
opinion of Apache and whether he (client-side) uses one.
> [deletia]
> Your position is just as aburd as claiming that OSS 'hasn't
> delivered' while ignoring sendmail, bind and BSD sockets.
Well, okay, then. Apache is a killer app. Where are the scores of
people flocking to Linux so they can run it?
Maybe the problem here is that your apparent definition of "killer
app" is "an app that attracts a lot of people from a niche market that
Unix already dominated."
(Obligatory bad pun: OSS doesn't deliver, but sendmail does.)
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 07:49:12 GMT
On Sun, 21 May 2000 07:21:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>
>> >Here are some requirements for a killer app:
>
>> >1. Lots of people have to use it.
>
>> 60% marketshare of the server part of THE current
>> killer microcomputer app.
>
>I believe you're snipping or ignoring the part where I write that
No, you're just conveniently redefining killer app so that
it suits your own argument.
[deletia]
If you decide to arbitrarily ignore the server part of a
client/server "killer app" the remaining bit that suits
your self-serving definition becomes fairly useless.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 21 May 2000 08:51:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>"dpkg --get-selections > packages.dpkg" on master machine
:>"dpkg --set-selections < packages.dpkg" on new machine
: How graceful is it about hardware differences? And is there
: a way to do a subsequent update (including adding/removing as
: well as updating packages) on the master so the copies can
: track along? What if source changes are done and things
: recompiled? Can the package be rebuilt and loaded from
: an alternate location on the copies?
Over here I use debian as client machines. Management is done from any
one of three central servers. Each of them can install and uninstall
software on all of the client machines. No master copy is kept.
Instead all clients are checksummed daily and the servers run an
analysis to detect differences. There are currently about 5-10 files
that differ between the machines, mostly in the /root directory.
dpkg run on the different machines almost always results in identical
installations. The exception is stuff that gets gzipped during
an install because the date or some such gets included in the image.
I repair such things later by using a tar. It's rare.
All debian packages can be rebuilt from the installed version. It's
something like debian-repack foo, if I recall. I wrote a version
of that before I discovered there was an official version. It's easy.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Horst von Brand)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 21 May 2000 03:30:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 19 May 2000 20:20:25 +0100,
Anthony W. Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>Also, aiui, rpm is sadly broken compared to dpkg... If a package has a
>"required" dependency registered with dpkg, you can be pretty sure that
>trying to run the dependent package will fail if the required package
>isn't installed. On the other hand it was a devil of a job to install
>SuSE *without* installing OSS and ISDN4LINUX because rpm said these
>packages were "required" - on a bare-bones system with no sound or isdn
>card. And I gather it's rpm's fault, not SuSE - those packages may be
>required, therefore they must be marked as required, therefore the
>system tries to force you to install them :-(
Sorry, no. Neither dpkg nor rpm can find out on their own which packages are
required for others to work (at least not in the general case). If the
package maintainer gives the wrong dependencies, it's his fault.
--
Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Casilla 9G, Vi�a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
