[MeeGo-dev] RPM vs DEB, the FAQ item?
david at dgreaves.com
Fri Feb 19 17:27:03 CST 2010
Auke Kok wrote:
> On 02/18/10 22:52, Marius Vollmer wrote:
>> ext Auke Kok<auke-jan.h.kok at intel.com> writes:
>> (And by "compatible" I mean something along the lines of "When compiling
>> a Fedora source package in Moblin, there will be no surprises. You
>> can't expect all (build) dependencies to be satisfied, but if they are
>> satisfied, you can expect the package to build and run correctly.")
>> Other packages, the ones that are in the hotspot of the Mobile
>> experience, and the ones that we should spend most of our time on, will
>> have to be very different from upstream, if they even exist in upstream
>> (yet). Still, they should not gratuitously conflict with upstream (or
>> the general distribution universe), of course, and if reasonable and
>> applicable, they should offer compatible interfaces.
> I don't want to step into details of what we've done with Moblin, but
> for instance, cutting out SElinux support,
understandable given the maemo6 security framework - and I can't see this being
a major compatibility stumbling block given that selinux is usually optional.
> and most of the Linux-PAM support,
Why on earth would you do this?
I hope you're kidding - I want the N910 to use ldap support over an openvpn link
to my corporate lan. I was discussing buying 40 N900's today because a) they
made better VOIP handsets than a VOIP handset and b) we could probably(1)
authenticate against ldap.
> is almost guaranteed to break a ton of compatibility with other
> distros quickly.
Please say you "stubbed" PAM to be a no-op rather than deciding to break API
> I certainly don't want to do unnecessary work either, but working on the
> fast boot code I've experienced myself that by inserting e.g. upstart
> into a sysvinit-based distribution, you'd break a ton more. Moblin's
> boot is however still based on sysvinit, but again so heavily modified
> we're breaking rpm relations left and right quickly.... Again these are
> not the best examples.
Seriously - how many packages *matter* for fast boot?
Are you really saying that we can't find a way to intercept update-initscripts
or whatever it is called to allow distro compatibility?
As an aside I can count how many times I've booted my N900 in the last 5 months
on one (or two) hands. I guess we're just used to more uptime here in the ARM
Good natured sniping aside I do wonder at the price we're paying for fast boot
(5 sec) on devices that should be "turning off" and "turning on" at the swipe of
a finger (0.01 sec), not the press of a power button.
> It's a very gray issue: We're trying to maintain e.g. binary
> compatibility (a binary from debian should work on Moblin permitted the
> right libraries are there) but we're realy not interested in making
> Madriva rpm's work on Moblin, or any other distro's rpm's....
Interesting - I'd say that we should aim for precisely the opposite.
I have no expectation (and no sane mechanism) of making a Debian binary run on
Of course, if your community is aimed at developers who write applications
like... oh, lets say "skype".... then I guess that makes a huge amount of sense.
> While that
> would be fantastic if it was possible, I don't think it's feasible for
> anyone to spend their time trying to achieve that :)
It is achievable - you just have have it as a design goal.
I'm really unhappy about MeeGo becoming some kind of 'cut-down' linux - I hear
the "if you want a package then just file a bugzilla request". But I don't
believe it's supportable. If so then can I file bugs for ldap-pam and openvpn
I've written and erased a *lot* of rather negative comments at this point in my
email (I'm estimating sent text : "hmm that's inflamatory <del>" text ratio is
at about 3:1 right now!!)
The point is I'm trying to understand/explore this stuff.
(1) Probably because Maemo isn't 100% OK with upstream Debian but it's not
"Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once..."s
More information about the MeeGo-dev