Hello all,

Do you think the packaging and deployment of binaries is very easy on linux ?
Why are there so many different ways like gzip, tar, rpm etc. ?
Isnt it possible to have only one easy way ? Which one to choose ?

Thanks

Yes. Last time I downloaded a binary, I unzipped it and then ran it. That really was it.

They do different things:

tar = turns multiple files & direcories into a single file. Means you only have to download one file instead of dozens

gzip = compresses files very small so you don't have to download so much.

tarball (tgz) = a set of files that has been turned into one zipped file. So you can download one small file instead of lots of big files.

rpm = redhat's system of package management - so you can easily install and uninstall programmes. There are other package managers too. They're meant to make it easy for you to install things by doing it all for you.

The trouble with packages is, somebody has to take the source files and turn them into packages before you can use them. So using, say, RPMs can mean you're using outdated hardware.

Some people also might not release their software as a package, so you're reliant on 'unofficial' packages that might or might now work.

Also, software often comes with compilation options, which you can't use with package managers.

So downloading the source code and compiling it means you can stay cutting-edge and with access to all options.

Downloading binaries is easier, but takes options away from you.

Downloading packages is easiest of all, but takes options away and can mean you're significantly behind on updates.

Hope this helps..

One of the benefits of open systems is that there are "so many different ways" to accomplish tasks. Developers and administrators are free to weigh the benefits of each method and choose which best meets their needs.

ahhh, you forgot bzip2 (.bz2) much better compression then gzip, but also not as popular (tho almost every distro support bzip2's)

I've always felt that tgz should be replaced fully by tar.bz2 (tbz? :P) - bz2 is pretty much supported as you say by almost every distro - why aren't bz2 downloads offered everywhere if not required?

The Debian Apt system is a breeze to use. It's the main reason I switched over from Mandrake, after suffering the dependency hell of the RPM system one too many times.

I've heard a lot of good things about Gentoo's source-based system, which combines the ease of use of a package system with the benefits of source installation. The only real drawback I've heard about is the compliation times involved when installing large programs.

theres only a few programs,... on my computer i can compile a kernel in under 5 minutes (takes about 2 hours on a Pentium laptop) and I'm on a athlon xp 2600+ just for a comparison of times

so heres some basic times:

glibc compile in about 1 hour (2 at the most)
gcc is pretty much the same as glibc

those programs are some of the biggest you'll ever see, however there are a few that are BIG!

open office takes a compile time of about a few hours (maybe 6?, the same it took my laptop to compile glibc)
firefox is also a long taker, possible a few hours, but less then open office if i remember right

all in all, just remember a few things, for compiling big packages, do it when you go to bed...... once everything is installed updates are rather a cinch, unless its one of those big packages, in which case, do the update when you go to bed)

all in all i never had too much of a dependency problem (there was this one annoying case where a program wanted alsa-drivers installed, but i use kernel 2.6.5, and alsa-drivers wont install unless you use 2.4 kernels ) ..... thankfully emerge (the main program of portage) has a option to install a dummy version of a particular software (it adds a entry so portage thinks its installed when its really not ... useful sometimes)

Distributing binaries for Linux is certainly feasible, but keep in mind that Linux runs on a wide variety of architectures; distributing binaries means you'd have to provide them for all the architectures that Linux runs on. Seems much more logical to me to distribute source. Source-oriented distros can be just as easy to install software on as binary-oriented distros (Gentoo is easier than Mandrake, IMHO).

The problem with having "one easy way" is that people have many different opinions about what that easy way is (hence the reason there are so many different approaches). Linux is all about choice, so you can choose what easy way you want to use.

Binary deployment in Linux is somewhat of a pain and could do with more standardisation. The main problem with binaries is not so much the packaging format but rather the dependencies and the directory layout.

I personally find the whole choice argument that OSS proponents like to bring forward unpractical in this aspect (software deployment). Choice is great when it creates innovation but when it leads to redundancy (multitudes of different package formats that target the exact same CPU architecture and do more or less the same thing), it becomes a liability.

Would you prefer the alternative: one distro and no choice in layout, format, configuration, or content? Each distribution uses a format that meets their needs, and they usually make a reasonable effort to include as much software as possible. Personally I don't understand why people think that dependancy issues are unique to Linux. I would rather that an application complain about a missing dependancy than blindly instally and hoping for the best. From what I have seen most dependancy problems arrise when people try to install the latest version of an application and not the the version that was current when the distro was released. In most cases, you can't take the motor out of a 2004 auto and put in in a same model 1996 auto without "resolving all of the dependancies". Yet people still try to do the equivalent with software.

i think choise is a good thing.
its great that people can choose the format in which they distribue programs depending on what best suits them.

Would you prefer the alternative: one distro and no choice in layout, format, configuration, or content?

Yes, I would, especially for distros geared towards the desktop workstation. Does having different directory layouts really achieve any benefits? Take for eg KDE configs. Some distros put them in /opt/kde3/share/config, some in /etc/X11/kde. Does it really serve any useful purpose? Why not standardise on one location? Standards in some way do restrict choice, but they are important in ensuring compatibility. Rewind the clock back 15 or so years ago to the era of the Unix wars. Look at how much API fragmentation divided the Unix industry until the formulation of POSIX and SUS standards. Why do we need to repeat the same mistake again on the desktop?

Each distribution uses a format that meets their needs, and they usually make a reasonable effort to include as much software as possible.

It is not possible for a distros to pack every piece of software on their CDs. IMO, it's a lot more useful to allow software maintainers to ship compiled packages directly to end users. Standardisation helps this immensely.

Personally I don't understand why people think that dependancy issues are unique to Linux.

Dependency issues are certainly not unique to Linux but they are a lot more apparent. This is because Linux does not have an adequate definition of what constitutes a "base" system (LSB isn't specific enough for desktops). On Windows, a developer can assume the presence of certain DLLs (eg kernel32.dll, gdi32.dll, user32.dll, shell32.dll etc among many others) but not on Linux, and that leads to r dependency hell.

I would rather that an application complain about a missing dependancy than blindly instally and hoping for the best. From what I have seen most dependancy problems arrise when people try to install the latest version of an application and not the the version that was current when the distro was released. In most cases, you can't take the motor out of a 2004 auto and put in in a same model 1996 auto without "resolving all of the dependancies". Yet people still try to do the equivalent with software.

The problem is many software packages are trigger happy when it comes to breaking binary compatibility and their .so versioning (OpenSSL comes to mind). A lot of unresolved deps can be solved if vendors paid more attention to backward compatibility

Software, being untangible, is lot more dynamic than a car, so it's invalid to draw an accurate comparison or analogy between the two.

I think you missed the point he was making - that the strength of Linux is that it has multiple distros all doing it their own way, rather than the monopolistic practices of a certain other OS..

At any rate, I can't account for him saying "you'd rather there was only one distro?" and you saying "Yes, I would, for the multiple distros..."

Isn't that the exact reason for the FHS?
As for different layouts having benefits.. well, yes. Freedom of choice.

Most people seem to like their CD/DVD ROM/RW mounts in a /mnt directory. I like mine in the root. And because I can set up Linux however I want, that's exactly where they are.

That, surely, is the whole point of having free, open software? So I can make it work exactly the way I want it, rather than the way some programmer thinks it should work?

I think you missed the point he was making - that the strength of Linux is that it has multiple distros all doing it their own way, rather than the monopolistic practices of a certain other OS..

At any rate, I can't account for him saying "you'd rather there was only one distro?" and you saying "Yes, I would, for the multiple distros..."

What I was trying to say, was: YES to one standard, YES to multiple implementations (distros) of the standard, NO to lack of standards.


Isn't that the exact reason for the FHS?

Yes. But appararently not adhered to as shown by the /opt /etc discrepancies in (distributions of) KDE.

As for different layouts having benefits.. well, yes. Freedom of choice.

I belong to the pragmatic school of developers rather than the idealistic hacker school. IMO, freedom is merely a means to an end, not an end in itself. If that choice leads to incompatibilties and confusion, it's a disadvantage.

Most people seem to like their CD/DVD ROM/RW mounts in a /mnt directory. I like mine in the root. And because I can set up Linux however I want, that's exactly where they are. That, surely, is the whole point of having free, open software? So I can make it work exactly the way I want it, rather than the way some programmer thinks it should work?

If most people like it, then by convention /mnt is the place where is should be. Indoctrinating this convention makes it a standard. People such as yourself who like to tinker around are free to ignore the standard as long they understand and appreciate the compatibility issues involved.

Standardisation (of binary standards in particular), does not take away anything from FOSS. Rather it complements it. Windows FOSS projects like OO.org and Firefox are examples. They exist as standardized binaries for people who want to have ready-to-use software available, and source for the FOSS purist who insists on rolling his own. It's a win-win situation at the end of the day.

My question about there being only one distro and no choice in layout, format, configuration, or content was rhetorical. While is possible to create a standard like FHS, it is impossible to get everyone to put software in the same place. The KDE locations are a great example. Not everyone considers KDE to be a core component of their distro so they move the config files from /etc to /opt. The comment about people tinkering and breaking a standard is exactly correct. Occasionally someone does something in a different way, and their idea catches on. The "free market" will decide which is the better way of doing things. There are so many people that have ideas about how to make Linux easier or cooler. Many of these distros never gain any traction and don't go anywhere. A similar thing is happening with FreeBSD with the fork of Dragonfly BSD. It'll take some time to see how well these ideas pan out and whether people in BSD community adopt them.

As far as "dependancy hell" as some people put it, this can be minimized by getting software only from the distro publisher. They generally make a decent effort to make sure that versions of various packages are compatible within a certain release of their distro.