• Welcome to OS2World OLD-STATIC-BACKUP Forum.
 

News:

This is an old OS2World backup forum for reference only. IT IS READ ONLY!!!

If you need help with OS/2 - eComStation visit http://www.os2world.com/forum

Main Menu

RPM packager

Started by minou, 2011.08.28, 07:35:09

Previous topic - Next topic

Do you want an RPM/YUM implementation for OS/2 that uses the Unix/Linux "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard" (/home, /var, /usr, /etc..)?

Yes
14 (41.2%)
No
18 (52.9%)
I don't know
2 (5.9%)

Total Members Voted: 0

miturbide

Quote from: dmik on 2011.08.30, 19:43:44
Regarding the Unix directory tree, I suggest you to read about FHS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard (and the original at http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_2.3/fhs-2.3.html) to have better understanding of what it is. There is a lot of good points in there, very few of which are related to the multi-user mode. it is an attempt to structure files in order to clean up the mess (not to create it).

dmik, reading about how the Unix FHS is organized it is not going to make it easier, or it is not going to make people like it. The FHS is complex and old. Maybe Unix users will like to know how the system is organized. But OS/2 is not a Unix, implementing the same FHS in OS/2-eCS is a bad idea. That's my point of view, and many other think it the same way.

Is it obvious that "/etc/" are the "Host-specific system-wide configuration files"? It is old, it is not user friendly.
Martín Itúrbide
OS2World.com NewsMaster
Open Source Advocate

Skype - martiniturbide
Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

dmik

#46
miturbide, you are trying to sit on both chairs. Either you care about the system internals or not. There is no middle. You enter the "developer zone" by trying to discuss system internals, but when it comes to presenting arguments protecting your position you behave like an "average user" since all you can say is "I don't like it / I'm not used to it". This leads our conversation nowhere...

FHS is much less complex than the current OS/2 mess. And it is younger than this OS/2 mess -)

For whom the purpose of "/etc" should be obvious? For me it is. For you, if you are a developer or an advanced user, it will also become obvious after you read FHS. If you are not interested in this level of detail, you don't care about "/etc".

Let's for a second assume that we call it like you want, e.g. "HostSettings". What's next? While the purpose of this directory will become more obvious for you, it will still remain cryptic for my girlfriend, and it will not actually give you any idea on how exactly different applications are going to use it -- you will still have to read their documentation or source code. Needless to say that it will break many and many programs. It's a dead end.

miturbide

I'm a technical user.. not a regular user, nor a developer. Many OS/2 users are of that kind.

dmik, when you attack me and try to provoke me, it is not going to give FHS more acceptance. Please don't do that.
Martín Itúrbide
OS2World.com NewsMaster
Open Source Advocate

Skype - martiniturbide
Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

dmik

miturbide, you think way too much about the importance of your own person.

miturbide

dmik, my opinion is as important as the rest of the people that uses this forum. I don't have the recognition, the merits or the resources to think I'm more important than anybody else here.

You are the one that is trying to get feedback on this forum why there are several users that don't like the idea of using RPM in the software you develop. People here are not ignorant, by sending them to read what FHS means are not going to convince them.

Martín Itúrbide
OS2World.com NewsMaster
Open Source Advocate

Skype - martiniturbide
Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

DougB

Quotemiturbide, you think way too much about the importance of your own person.

Now there is a classic case of Pot, Kettle, Black. Dmik, I could say the exact same thing about you.

IMO, the OS/2 boot drive is a bit of a mess, but only because those who started adding things made it so. It does make a lot of sense to distribute the folders as they have been done, although a couple of them have been overused. It is, in fact, not all that different from what Linux puts into the /usr  folder. To add a whole new folder, that is just as bad, or worse, is not the answer to the problem (a minimal problem, until the linux junk gets added, then it becomes much worse). One of the BIG problems today, is the %ETC% folder. It is being used for too many things, and it collects a lot of junk. Junk that should be contained in the program folder. Now that the eCS installer has been fixed to allow the HOME and PROGRAMS folders to be located outside of the boot drive, eCS is beginning to get cleaned up. I still object to the concept of the HOME folder which also collects large amounts of junk that should be contained inside the using program's own folder. The worst part about the HOME folder, is that uninstalling programs does not clean it out, and the junk sits there forever, unless the user realizes that it needs to be removed. Then, it is a real problem to try to sort out what should go, and what should stay. More than once, I just erased the whole thing, and let programs put back what they seem to think they need. The idea of another whole mess like that really turns me off. When a program is contained, entirely, in one folder, one can get rid of everything at one go. You also know where to look when there is a problem. The mess that needs to be cleaned up, are the programs that seem to think they need a complicated setup to make them work. At most, a program should need a folder for the program, and a folder for the data. Nothing else should be required. Years ago, when disk space was somewhat limited, it did make sense to share DLLs, but that is no longer the case, and programmers should seriously be looking at getting rid of them, where possible, and incorporate the code directly into their programs. If that ever happened, about 80% of the compatibility problems would go away, along with the need to try to figure out how to use different levels of DLL for different programs. That would also eliminate the imaginary problem where a user needs to open a WarpIn installer, to determine the requirements (that is rarely needed anyway), and then go and download whatever is needed, before doing the actual install.

I could go on about this, but I have other things to do. Rest assured, that your idea of how my system should be set up, is no more valid that anybody else's ideas, and the Linux method is not nearly as flexible as the OS/2 method, so I see no reason to limit what the OS/2 user can do, just because you (or anybody else) thinks that we need to turn OS/2 into Linux. It isn't worth the hassles, and it is certainly no better. The only winner, is the programmer who decides to port some (poorly written, IMO) software so that it will run in OS/2. Everybody else loses.

Paul Smedley

Quote from: DougB on 2011.08.30, 23:32:13
I could go on about this, but I have other things to do. Rest assured, that your idea of how my system should be set up, is no more valid that anybody else's ideas, and the Linux method is not nearly as flexible as the OS/2 method, so I see no reason to limit what the OS/2 user can do, just because you (or anybody else) thinks that we need to turn OS/2 into Linux. It isn't worth the hassles, and it is certainly no better. The only winner, is the programmer who decides to port some (poorly written, IMO) software so that it will run in OS/2. Everybody else loses.

Sounds like I should stop porting linux junk to OS/2 then...

miturbide

Paul, your work is appreciated.
I think that it is ok to port open source Linux software to OS/2.  It is legal and it works.

But there is a difference between porting Linux software to OS/2, and trying to convert OS/2 into Linux (like wanting to use the same file system structure), which is the polemic component of this forum thread.

Even when I dream about having a full OS/2 open source clone, it does not mean to transform OS2 into a Linux distro.

Martín Itúrbide
OS2World.com NewsMaster
Open Source Advocate

Skype - martiniturbide
Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

Pete

Hi Paul

Your choice - but do carry on porting the useful stuff, Please  :-)

Regards

Pete

dmik

miturbide, what I mean that I have no interest in provoking you personally. What about your opinion, I already mentioned that I understood it. But since you don't answer questions that I ask you, and also have a predisposition against everything from the Linux world, I don't see how we can continue the discussion.

DougB, I didn't give you a reason to say that about me as I don't put myself in the center of the world. First, I have an honor to express a collaborative opinion of a group of currently active OS/2 developers *and* users (which have been discussing this topic for a long time), not only my own. Second, I'm a developer only when it comes to Qt/Odin/Java. When it comes to e.g. Firefox, I'm just a regular user, like you. And I admit that developers of Firefox have much better understanding on what environment it should have and where it should live, than me. I don't want to know what files the Firefox package contains, I only want it to browse HTML pages for me and not crash. As long as I'm not involved in manually installing or configuring it, I completely don't care about its files and directories.

The rest of your speech contains too much arrogant "junk" which makes it pointless to comment on it and describe you the points where your assumptions are wrong (you will unlikely hear it anyway). Sorry.

Pete

Hi dmik

Is there an installer version of Firefox for OS/2 somewhere? - and I mean a reasonably recent build.

I don't think there is. Therefore you have to manually install it and also configure it.

Probably not your best choice as an example of software that is automatically installed and configured  :-)


Regards

Pete



Pete

Hi dmik

I've just downloaded and installed http://rpm.netlabs.org/bootstrap/rpm-yum-bootstrap-1_3.wpi

Here is a silly question: I have the following in my config.sys file:-

REM [ Temporary Directories ]
SET TMP=J:\temp
SET TEMP=J:\temp
SET TMPDIR=J:\temp

So why does this package create a \tmp directory?

Why does it not use the predefined %TMP%?


Regards

Pete


dmik

Pete, Regarding Firefox. This was a hypothetical example -) I don't know about any Firefox installers for OS/2. But it is easy to create with RPM and it is in the plan too.

Regarding the temporary directory. Actually it may make sense to use %TMP% indeed, all access to "/tmp" from LIBC-based apps is redirected there anyway. I will point Yuri to it.

miturbide

dmik, I personally don't have any negative predisposition against everything from the Linux world, like you said...please don't put the wrong words in my mouth.

I had used it and I had taken my personal conclusions. I had good points and bad points. It is good and ok to port Linux software to OS/2, but one of the negative points I consider about Linux is the FHS. I don't consider it good idea to replica that structure to OS/2-eCS.
Martín Itúrbide
OS2World.com NewsMaster
Open Source Advocate

Skype - martiniturbide
Google Talk - martiniturbide@gmail.com

Paul Smedley

Quote from: dmik on 2011.08.31, 13:34:23
Regarding the temporary directory. Actually it may make sense to use %TMP% indeed, all access to "/tmp" from LIBC-based apps is redirected there anyway. I will point Yuri to it.

afaik access to /tmp is only redirected to %TMP% on eCS 1.2 or later where Bart's path rewriter app was included....