[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
> If the libs are shared then what, exactly, is compartmentalised in > \Programs\ProgramName ? Is it merely the unique binaries/scripts and a > few symlinks. Or is it the other way and the libs are installed there > and subsequent programs symlink to the shared libs in the first > program's sub directories and if so, how does it know without a package > manager? > > Judging from the website it looks like most things need to be repackaged > in 'recipes'. Not sure how building things from source would work, I'd > guess you'd need to rewrite each makefile so it installed elsewhere. > Recipes aren't really packages. It's a set of instructions for the "package management" programs. The most basic recipe would be a url to the source tarball. I'm under the impression that many programs need very little else. For some programs they may need more persuasion, probably the most obvious being a list of dependancies. Last I saw you download all of the recipies and then choose which programs to install. I see this as vaguely analogous to apt-get update the apt-get install except with compiling. The graphical tool gives an experience like adept. As for the directories, I would presume that each recipe would result in a directory, so kde would get one, libc would get another. If your package would normally put things in /usr and /lib then they would all go in /Programs/Progname/usr /Programs/Progname/lib (or whatever they're called) but they also get symlinked to other places like /System/Links/Executables and /System/Links/Libraries. The same applies for the other directories too like etc, var... probably not home though. I remember something about binary packages being on the cards but that's what you end up with after compiling. A binary package would likely be just a tar.gz of the directory as the gobo scripts are capable of removing and remaking any symlinks relating to a package. As for compiling something that doesn't come with a recipe, I'm not sure how that would work. There are alot of scripts that relate to this stuff so it might be a case of running Compile package.tar.gz; Link package >If somebody chooses this distro they are either: A) Someone who doesn't >want to know what's under the hood or B) A geek who loves the idea and >thinks it's great. If you read the "history" bit on this page (only a few paragraphs) it'll explain how it came about. http://gobolinux.org/index.php?page=k5 I can't remember the page that says it, but it's not meant for newbies. It's meant for people who know about linux and think that this way makes more sense (ie. case B above). >If B) then they'll learn a file system that's wrong and spend a lot of >time fiddling to get stuff not supported working and learn a filesystem >that isn't widely used and when they try to use another distro they'll >be getting mighty confused. That's probably true to some extent but I'd imagine that the fiddling would keep your memory fresh, or if it doesn't, then there obviously isn't that much need for fiddling. >My main difficulty in understanding this distro is simply - Why? >I guess I just don't agree that Linux's filesystem needs changing. The why would be that some people think that it does. The particular goal is keep things more organised (which i'll admit is very subjective). What gobo seem to be preaching is not that theirs is the right way, but that there isn't any "the right way" and that people should be able to do what they want, like install kde in someone's home directory. Another thing to bear in mind is that the flexability they want isn't much different to what's needed to choose to install into /usr, /usr/local, /opt or ~ -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html