| |||||||||||||
A possible change of direction for Foresight LinuxA possible change of direction for Foresight LinuxPosted Aug 17, 2009 15:33 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)In reply to: A possible change of direction for Foresight Linux by drag Parent article: A possible change of direction for Foresight Linux
If RPM can be converted to using Conary then I don't see any reason at all why they shouldn't just take Fedora's binary's and use them for themselves.If they are so compatible, why "convert" at all? Maybe this sort of thing will help convince people that 'compile everything from scratch for each distro' isn't really necessary. I mean everybody is using the same compiler, same kernel, same userland source code for everything already. It's not like anybody is trying to build systems with PCC or Intel's c compiler or anying bizzare like that. This is dead wrong. There are differences in exact versions (particularly when packaging upstreams that don't release that often, where you end up taking some kind of semi-random snapshot plus suggested fixes), configuration (not all distributions use vanilla configurations; some include support for stuff important to them, others delete something they can't include for whatever reason), where exactly configuration files are stored (yes, this is in the binaries), what compiler flags are used, exactly what versions of the used support libraries are shipped, what (extraofficial or local) patches are added, and a host of other differences. The source differences are (thankfully!) shrinking as distributions figure out that it is better to do bug fixing and enhancing (with) upstream, but they haven't dissapeared.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||