Why don't distros unite their package management?

[EdiieLives]

Is there a reason of why the distros don't use the same package type and/or database?

[Trogdor]

1. Because different package systems have different goals (binary packages vs. source packages).

2. Because some distros need to make minor adjustments to programs for them to work.

[bosox79]

Originally posted by Trogdor
1. Because different package systems have different goals (binary packages vs. source packages).

2. Because some distros need to make minor adjustments to programs for them to work.

in addition to what Trogdor said this would not be pratical becuse most distro's are targeted to a certin user group and this may limt some of the choice that linux offers.

know another question might be why don't different package types standardize on a certain package management tool? e.g apt4rpm? for RPM based distro's and for source based distro's maybe portage? again I think this is becuse user choice would be limited. This is another reason we see so many diffrent distro's but choice is one of the best things about linux IMO

just my .02:D

[EdiieLives]

I was asking if there was a reason because I feel Linux is really decentralized. To compile/install a program you have to deal with lots of dependencies sometimes.

Could you explain me the binary packages vs. source packages thing? Couldn't both of them coexist?

About the minor adjustments I don't think that's a big deal.

I don't see how uniting all the distros package management in one would result in a limitation :confused: I mean, what if all the choices could coexist? Maybe I just got that part wrong. The distros could have different categories. You would be encouraged to use certain group that your distro recommends and not being limited to just the packages for one distro.

[kquamme94]

I think a standardized package manager COULD be done, but it WOULDN'T be the only way of installing packages in a distro. Distros would have a standardized package manager alongside say rpm or tgz. If there was only one package manager, that would take choice out of linux, and then linux is no longer linux, it's somethin else.....

it's all about freedom!

[spork2000]

Originally posted by EdiieLives
I was asking if there was a reason because I feel Linux is really decentralized. To compile/install a program you have to deal with lots of dependencies sometimes.

Could you explain me the binary packages vs. source packages thing? Couldn't both of them coexist?

Yup, I when I ran Mandrake I would use RPMs to solve dependencies for packages that I was compiling from source.


About the minor adjustments I don't think that's a big deal.

I don't see how uniting all the distros package management in one would result in a limitation :confused: I mean, what if all the choices could coexist? Maybe I just got that part wrong. The distros could have different categories. You would be encouraged to use certain group that your distro recommends and not being limited to just the packages for one distro.

Seems like you just said it yourself. You're encouraged to use the packages your distro recommends but not limited to those. You can use source files (my preference usually) or the packages. But not all distros have the same goal or purpose in mind as others pointed out here. Mandrake is geared toward newbies, Smoothwall is a firewall distro, Knoppix is a live CD, etc, etc. Different purposes or goals = different ways of dealing with software.

[EdiieLives]

I guess Linux wrong ;) I tought that it wasn't just about freedom, but about having a more stable and faster system, with a united comunity(that would explain the open source movement)

But freedom doesn't means to have more choices. Besides, looks like you people have strong feelings for linux and it's movement :) so you probably would refuse to move to something else even if it's better in general terms.

About being encouraged and stuff, you are right, that's how it's done now but all the information is all over the net; there is no overall meeting point(or at least to my knowledge :rolleyes: ) As far as I know, you are encouraged to use your distro's package system, but even tought mixing stuff is posible, something could be easily screwed up.

But not all distros have the same goal or purpose in mind as others pointed out here. Mandrake is geared toward newbies, Smoothwall is a firewall distro, Knoppix is a live CD, etc, etc. Different purposes or goals = different ways of dealing with software.

So, if Mandrake would make tools themselves to make it easier for newbies, why wouldn't other distros would include it inside themselves? Smoothwall would include tools to make easier firewall configuration(for example) easier, but maybe because of space limitations Knoppix wouldn't include easier stuff(well maybe easy yes, but not pretty), but things from Smoothwall to make its firewalls better. Do distros help each other or they do the opposite??

[spork2000]

Originally posted by EdiieLives
I guess Linux wrong ;) I tought that it wasn't just about freedom, but about having a more stable and faster system, with a united comunity(that would explain the open source movement)

But freedom doesn't means to have more choices. Besides, looks like you people have strong feelings for linux and it's movement :) so you probably would refuse to move to something else even if it's better in general terms.

About being encouraged and stuff, you are right, that's how it's done now but all the information is all over the net; there is no overall meeting point(or at least to my knowledge :rolleyes: ) As far as I know, you are encouraged to use your distro's package system, but even tought mixing stuff is posible, something could be easily screwed up.

But not all distros have the same goal or purpose in mind as others pointed out here. Mandrake is geared toward newbies, Smoothwall is a firewall distro, Knoppix is a live CD, etc, etc. Different purposes or goals = different ways of dealing with software.

So, if Mandrake would make tools themselves to make it easier for newbies, why wouldn't other distros would include it inside themselves? Smoothwall would include tools to make easier firewall configuration(for example) easier, but maybe because of space limitations Knoppix wouldn't include easier stuff(well maybe easy yes, but not pretty), but things from Smoothwall to make its firewalls better. Do distros help each other or they do the opposite??

If Mandrake paid to develop it and it wasn't released under the GPL why would they share? Same as any other busines model.

Guess I don't understand what you're getting at here?

[EdiieLives]

Actually your answer cleared everything to me thanks :)

[spork2000]

Uhh, ok.

Just hope I'm right. :D

Wouldn't want to mislead you.

[j79zlr]

IMHO that is linuxes weakness and FreeBSD's strongpoint. **ducking from flames** Gentoo's portage is not nearly as refined as FreeBSD's port collection, it definitely needs some work. Gentoo's portage swaret, slapt-get, urpmi, and apt-get are all steps in the right direction but aren't there yet. I've only had one minor dependency problem with FreeBSD and that was mod_php4 depending on MySQL 4.0, when I installed MySQL 4.1. One symlink fixed that [ln -s libmysqlclient.so.14 libmysqlclient.so.12].

[spork2000]

Originally posted by j79zlr
IMHO that is linuxes weakness and FreeBSD's strongpoint. **ducking from flames** Gentoo's portage is not nearly as refined as FreeBSD's port collection, it definitely needs some work. Gentoo's portage swaret, slapt-get, urpmi, and apt-get are all steps in the right direction but aren't there yet. I've only had one minor dependency problem with FreeBSD and that was mod_php4 depending on MySQL 4.0, when I installed MySQL 4.1. One symlink fixed that [ln -s libmysqlclient.so.14 libmysqlclient.so.12].

That's what I was thinking of, the BSDs when he mentioned Linux being decentralized...

[JusKickNit]

Originally posted by EdiieLives
I was asking if there was a reason because I feel Linux is really decentralized. To compile/install a program you have to deal with lots of dependencies sometimes.

I use to feel this way also. I thought Linux would never go mainstream, because the Software Maker's would have to make there software avalible in a .tgz,.rpm,.deb,etc.... . But most Distro's can use the .run file's that Nvidia and most of the Non-opensource games use. Also try to tell a Debian or Gentoo user to use RPM's or vice-versa;)

[knute]

Alot of it also has to do with a programmer's mindset.

See, one programmer may use a while loop, while another prefers a for/next loop to count to 10.
LOL I can see the non-programmers sitting there thinking, "How many ways can there be to count to 10?!?!" and the programmers of any skill level nodding sagely at that. :D

See, they do the same exact job, but it has to do with not only what the exact job is, but also the style that the programmer has in his/her coding.

Linux, with it's decentralized nature, and built on and expanded by those same programmers, all approach the job from a little different perspective, and leave a little bit of themselves in the code (GPL is proof of this), hence you have the different distro's and the different ways of doing the exact same job. All of them good, and what's used depends on personal preference.

Oh yeah, and that counting example above, for you non-programmer types, is used more extensively than you could imagine! ;)

[bosox79]

Originally posted by knute
Alot of it also has to do with a programmer's mindset.

See, one programmer may use a while loop, while another prefers a for/next loop to count to 10.
LOL I can see the non-programmers sitting there thinking, "How many ways can there be to count to 10?!?!" and the programmers of any skill level nodding sagely at that. :D

See, they do the same exact job, but it has to do with not only what the exact job is, but also the style that the programmer has in his/her coding.

Linux, with it's decentralized nature, and built on and expanded by those same programmers, all approach the job from a little different perspective, and leave a little bit of themselves in the code (GPL is proof of this), hence you have the different distro's and the different ways of doing the exact same job. All of them good, and what's used depends on personal preference.

Oh yeah, and that counting example above, for you non-programmer types, is used more extensively than you could imagine! ;)

very well stated knute :)

[EdiieLives]

Actually I was asking at the beginning because I installed Debian Woody, and I have fought against a dependency hell, I still cannot get out of it, actually I have mostly just advanced baby steps in weeks.

I tought that if there was only one type of package, everybody would, beside giving the source, give a package since it would only be one that works for all. Also if making packages was easier that would help, but I don't see anything of this comming, at least not in less than a couple of years.

[j79zlr]

Although I do really like FreeBSD it lacks some user features like a working flash plugin. But in my use of linux, what's dependency hell? Usually if you build from source it will cause a stop error make failed b/c xxx is missing, so you install that. If it complains about something else install that? I've never had too much trouble with this.

[EdiieLives]

Well the problem is that since I want some new programs, and Woody is outdated I have to upgrade almost all of them, and get lots of new ones.

Of course its getting easier with practice :p but anyways I think it's too much. For example I want to install gaim or falcon's eye... right now I have to solve 14 gaim dependencies, and almost always those dependencies have dependencies and so on. I was surprised when updating SDL didn't gave me any dependency errors :D

[knute]

Originally posted by EdiieLives
Well the problem is that since I want some new programs, and Woody is outdated I have to upgrade almost all of them, and get lots of new ones.

Of course its getting easier with practice :p but anyways I think it's too much. For example I want to install gaim or falcon's eye... right now I have to solve 14 gaim dependencies, and almost always those dependencies have dependencies and so on. I was surprised when updating SDL didn't gave me any dependency errors :D

Ok. This is an easy fix, if you are willing to mofiy a config file, and then spend some time with the update (waiting actually) ;)

First off you will need to open your /etc/apt/sources.list file with your favorite text editor (I use vim, but that's another story).
Then you will need to add the following lines to it:
deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
deb-src ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free


After you have added those lines as root, you can save and close the file. Then sitll as root, issues the following command:
apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade

This command will update your package lists and then it will update all the programs that have updates, system files included.

The reason that stable was used in the sources.list is that those symlinks are updated on the servers to point to the current stable version. So when Sid????? becomes the stable version, and you update, it will pretty much be transparent to you.

If you want to use unstable or testing packages as well, you can add other lines and substitute stable for either unstable or testing. I have all three in my lists, and I don't have many problems.
I would warn you however, that because you are still new to linux, that keeping to the stable version would minimize "undocumented features" from wreaking havoc in your system.
It doesn't happen too often, but it does happen.

HTH

[EdiieLives]

I think I'll see the man page for apt-get...

I know that unstable is more vulnerable, but I'm willing to take the risk. That, and that I don't really mind installing debian again too much :p