Which distro? - Setup

This is a discussion on Which distro? - Setup ; Jean-David Beyer wrote: > Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> John Hasler wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle writes: >>>> Because even a minimal Debian depends on hooks in MySQL and others. >>> Huh??? I have no idea what you mean by that. >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 76

Thread: Which distro?

  1. Re: Which distro?

    Jean-David Beyer wrote:
    > Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    >> John Hasler wrote:
    >>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
    >>>> Because even a minimal Debian depends on hooks in MySQL and others.
    >>> Huh??? I have no idea what you mean by that.

    >> Maybe I'm wrong - but the smallest Debian I've installed has to have a
    >> Debian user for MySQL, has special config files for MySQL, etc. Same
    >> for other products like Exim.

    >
    > My RHEL 5 system does not have MySQL in it. (It does have postgreSQL in it,
    > but only because I asked for it. And I _could_ ask for mySql as well, but I
    > did not want two dbms programs.)
    >> Example - last time I upgraded files, it upgraded pam. Unfortunately, I
    >> don't use standard pam for administration. The result was no way to ssh
    >> into the system.
    >>
    >> This system also uses MySQL heavily for mail processing - Exim and
    >> qpopper. Attempting to update some other files resulted in Exim
    >> attempting to be updated - which would have broken all mail processing.

    >
    > I run sendmail on my machine. It is true that I do not use it much.
    >> As I said - too many things are tied together with Debian's package
    >> manager. And too many thing are tied together in the system itself.
    >>
    >> Debian's package system works well if you're using the standard system -
    >> but not that well if you have a heavily customized one. But
    >> unfortunately, when you update the base components, sometimes the other
    >> packages get updated, also.
    >>

    >
    >


    Are there ANY packages RH requires? The last time I looked, there were
    several. I don't remember which ones - it's been a while. But the
    reason I picked Debian at the time for this customer was because at the
    time (3-4 years ago) it had the least conflicts.

    --
    ==================
    Remove the "x" from my email address
    Jerry Stuckle
    JDS Computer Training Corp.
    jstucklex@attglobal.net
    ==================

  2. Re: Which distro?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    >> John Hasler wrote:
    >>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
    >>>> Because even a minimal Debian depends on hooks in MySQL and others.
    >>>
    >>> Huh??? I have no idea what you mean by that.

    >>
    >> Maybe I'm wrong - but the smallest Debian I've installed has to have a
    >> Debian user for MySQL, has special config files for MySQL, etc. Same
    >> for other products like Exim.
    >>
    >> Example - last time I upgraded files, it upgraded pam. Unfortunately,
    >> I don't use standard pam for administration. The result was no way to
    >> ssh into the system.
    >>
    >> This system also uses MySQL heavily for mail processing - Exim and
    >> qpopper. Attempting to update some other files resulted in Exim
    >> attempting to be updated - which would have broken all mail processing.
    >>
    >> As I said - too many things are tied together with Debian's package
    >> manager. And too many thing are tied together in the system itself.

    >
    > This is not a Debian specific problem. It's a software suite problem.
    > It's nightmarish to test and debug and maintain compatibility with
    > multiple versions of multiple related packages, and it's compounded by
    > software that ignores the 'UNIX File System Hierarchy', has no
    > 'installation' procedures, and generally ignores the lessons of software
    > management of the last few decades.
    >
    > Package managers try to keep the requirements and version
    > compatibilities linked. You ignore them at your own peril, especially
    > for tools like MySQL that have lots of add-ons which may not be
    > compatible without some version control, or without the patches to aid
    > compatibility maintained.
    >
    >> Debian's package system works well if you're using the standard system
    >> - but not that well if you have a heavily customized one. But
    >> unfortunately, when you update the base components, sometimes the
    >> other packages get updated, also.
    >>

    >
    > This is when you go through extra steps to maintain your own software
    > repository. I've done so with RPM, not apt, but if you want this level
    > of control you have to tweak anything with a package management sytem.


    My question is not how to maintain the packages. I don't need to be
    told how YOU think it should be done. I've been doing this for over 40
    years, and know what I'm doing.

    My question is exactly what I asked. I need a distro which can proved a
    kernel and networking, and nothing else. I will manage the rest.

    --
    ==================
    Remove the "x" from my email address
    Jerry Stuckle
    JDS Computer Training Corp.
    jstucklex@attglobal.net
    ==================

  3. Re: Which distro?

    John Hasler wrote:

    > Tayo'y Mga Pinoy writes:
    >> What you need to do is to compile the packages yourself, which is why I
    >> pointed you to Arch.

    >
    > He could compile the packages himself perfectly well on Debian.


    Yes, but the Arch method works better as you make your own packge that
    integrates into the package manager system.
    --
    Tayo'y Mga Pinoy

  4. Re: Which distro?

    I demand that Jerry Stuckle may or may not have written...

    > Darren Salt wrote:
    >> I demand that Jerry Stuckle may or may not have written...
    >>> John Hasler wrote:

    >> [snip]
    >>>> Exim does not require Mysql.
    >>> My Exim installation does - and therein lies the problem. The Exim which
    >>> is supplied with Debian replaces mine on an upgrade, and all email stops
    >>> working.

    >> Then build your own *packaged* versions (you should add an entry to
    >> debian/changelog, modifying the version number by adding something like
    >> "+local1"), install them (use dpkg) & mark them as "held" (aptitude
    >> allows this).

    [snip]

    > Which is a heck of a lot more work than the customer is willing to pay for.
    > And every time we need to change something, we need to create a new build.


    Well, yes. There's no change there...

    > As it is, I have build scripts for what I need - and they work fine. For
    > instance, I just had to add one option into the PHP build. It was just a
    > matter of adding one line to the script and rebuild PHP.


    Marking as held still applies.

    > They are not going to pay to completely redo the package system for their
    > need.


    From where did you get this "completely redo the package system"?

    > Which is why I need a package-less distro.


    You do? ISTM that you've decided on an answer and are now trying to justify
    it...

    I think that you'd be better off using the packaging system to help you,
    rather than using it for most things but working against it for specific
    packages (as you appear to be doing at present). You'll easily be able to see
    which packages would be upgraded if they weren't held at their current
    versions, and therefore which packages need to be rebuilt.

    You may find that setting up your own repository will help, particularly if
    you have to upgrade many installations; you can configure them to prefer to
    pull packages from your repository, even if newer official versions are
    available.

    --
    | Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
    | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
    | + Burn less waste. Use less packaging. Waste less. USE FEWER RESOURCES.

    Today is the first day of the rest of your lossage.

  5. Re: Which distro?

    I demand that Baho Utot may or may not have written...

    > John Hasler wrote:
    >> Tayo'y Mga Pinoy writes:
    >>> What you need to do is to compile the packages yourself, which is why I
    >>> pointed you to Arch.

    >> He could compile the packages himself perfectly well on Debian.


    > Yes, but the Arch method works better as you make your own packge that
    > integrates into the package manager system.


    Which is what I do (using Debian).

    --
    | Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
    | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
    | Kill all extremists!

    Even a cabbage may look at a king.

  6. Re: Which distro?

    Tayo'y Mga Pinoy writes:
    > What you need to do is to compile the packages yourself, which is why I
    > pointed you to Arch.


    I wrote:
    > He could compile the packages himself perfectly well on Debian.


    Tayo'y Mga Pinoy writes:
    > Yes, but the Arch method works better as you make your own packge that
    > integrates into the package manager system.


    One can do likewise on Debian.
    --
    John Hasler
    john@dhh.gt.org
    Dancing Horse Hill
    Elmwood, WI USA

  7. Re: Which distro?

    Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    > Darren Salt wrote:
    >> I demand that Jerry Stuckle may or may not have written...
    >>
    >>> John Hasler wrote:

    >> [snip]
    >>>> Exim does not require Mysql.

    >>
    >>> My Exim installation does - and therein lies the problem. The Exim
    >>> which
    >>> is supplied with Debian replaces mine on an upgrade, and all email stops
    >>> working.

    >>
    >> Then build your own *packaged* versions (you should add an entry to
    >> debian/changelog, modifying the version number by adding something like
    >> "+local1"), install them (use dpkg) & mark them as "held" (aptitude
    >> allows
    >> this).
    >>
    >> To build, use "debuild binary" (requires devscripts) or, if you want a
    >> source
    >> package containing your changes to be built as well, "debuild".
    >>
    >> Upgrading any given modified package should be fine, so long as you
    >> put your
    >> changes in whatever patch system the source package uses or you can
    >> readily
    >> identify them in the .diff.gz.
    >>
    >> [snip]

    >
    > Which is a heck of a lot more work than the customer is willing to pay
    > for. And every time we need to change something, we need to create a
    > new build. As it is, I have build scripts for what I need - and they
    > work fine. For instance, I just had to add one option into the PHP
    > build. It was just a matter of adding one line to the script and
    > rebuild PHP.
    >
    > They are not going to pay to completely redo the package system for
    > their need. Which is why I need a package-less distro.
    >


    The difference between a package-free installation and your setup is that
    you've created your own 'package', which nothing else can or will know about.
    This is begging for pain.

  8. Re: Which distro?

    Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    >>> John Hasler wrote:
    >>>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
    >>>>> Because even a minimal Debian depends on hooks in MySQL and others.
    >>>>
    >>>> Huh??? I have no idea what you mean by that.
    >>>
    >>> Maybe I'm wrong - but the smallest Debian I've installed has to have
    >>> a Debian user for MySQL, has special config files for MySQL, etc.
    >>> Same for other products like Exim.
    >>>
    >>> Example - last time I upgraded files, it upgraded pam.
    >>> Unfortunately, I don't use standard pam for administration. The
    >>> result was no way to ssh into the system.
    >>>
    >>> This system also uses MySQL heavily for mail processing - Exim and
    >>> qpopper. Attempting to update some other files resulted in Exim
    >>> attempting to be updated - which would have broken all mail processing.
    >>>
    >>> As I said - too many things are tied together with Debian's package
    >>> manager. And too many thing are tied together in the system itself.

    >>
    >> This is not a Debian specific problem. It's a software suite problem.
    >> It's nightmarish to test and debug and maintain compatibility with
    >> multiple versions of multiple related packages, and it's compounded by
    >> software that ignores the 'UNIX File System Hierarchy', has no
    >> 'installation' procedures, and generally ignores the lessons of
    >> software management of the last few decades.
    >>
    >> Package managers try to keep the requirements and version
    >> compatibilities linked. You ignore them at your own peril, especially
    >> for tools like MySQL that have lots of add-ons which may not be
    >> compatible without some version control, or without the patches to aid
    >> compatibility maintained.
    >>
    >>> Debian's package system works well if you're using the standard
    >>> system - but not that well if you have a heavily customized one.
    >>> But unfortunately, when you update the base components, sometimes the
    >>> other packages get updated, also.
    >>>

    >>
    >> This is when you go through extra steps to maintain your own software
    >> repository. I've done so with RPM, not apt, but if you want this level
    >> of control you have to tweak anything with a package management sytem.

    >
    > My question is not how to maintain the packages. I don't need to be
    > told how YOU think it should be done. I've been doing this for over 40
    > years, and know what I'm doing.
    >
    > My question is exactly what I asked. I need a distro which can proved a
    > kernel and networking, and nothing else. I will manage the rest.
    >


    No such thing. glibc and shells, documentation tools like 'man', shell
    utilities such as 'ls' and 'rm', disk partitioning utilities, network
    utilities, etc. benefit from version management. Without that, you don't have
    an OS, you have a kernel. And building from *THAT* is probably not in your
    client's budget.

  9. Re: Which distro?

    Darren Salt wrote:
    > I demand that Jerry Stuckle may or may not have written...
    >
    >> Darren Salt wrote:
    >>> I demand that Jerry Stuckle may or may not have written...
    >>>> John Hasler wrote:
    >>> [snip]
    >>>>> Exim does not require Mysql.
    >>>> My Exim installation does - and therein lies the problem. The Exim which
    >>>> is supplied with Debian replaces mine on an upgrade, and all email stops
    >>>> working.
    >>> Then build your own *packaged* versions (you should add an entry to
    >>> debian/changelog, modifying the version number by adding something like
    >>> "+local1"), install them (use dpkg) & mark them as "held" (aptitude
    >>> allows this).

    > [snip]
    >
    >> Which is a heck of a lot more work than the customer is willing to pay for.
    >> And every time we need to change something, we need to create a new build.

    >
    > Well, yes. There's no change there...
    >
    >> As it is, I have build scripts for what I need - and they work fine. For
    >> instance, I just had to add one option into the PHP build. It was just a
    >> matter of adding one line to the script and rebuild PHP.

    >
    > Marking as held still applies.
    >
    >> They are not going to pay to completely redo the package system for their
    >> need.

    >
    > From where did you get this "completely redo the package system"?
    >
    >> Which is why I need a package-less distro.

    >
    > You do? ISTM that you've decided on an answer and are now trying to justify
    > it...
    >
    > I think that you'd be better off using the packaging system to help you,
    > rather than using it for most things but working against it for specific
    > packages (as you appear to be doing at present). You'll easily be able to see
    > which packages would be upgraded if they weren't held at their current
    > versions, and therefore which packages need to be rebuilt.
    >
    > You may find that setting up your own repository will help, particularly if
    > you have to upgrade many installations; you can configure them to prefer to
    > pull packages from your repository, even if newer official versions are
    > available.
    >


    No, I have no need to justify my answer. I asked a simple question.
    Rather than get a simple answer, I've had a lot of "you should do it
    this way instead" answers.

    Which is *exactly* why I've hesitated asking this question in this
    newsgroup. Rather than answer the question, you tell me a bunch of
    other things I should be doing.

    Sorry - I've been working with Unix long before Linux or any package
    system was ever in place. I know how to administer the system. I'm
    just wanting to get rid of the @#$% package system. Maybe it's good for
    you. But it's not for me or my customer.

    So rather than tell me what I should be doing. How about just answering
    my basic question?

    --
    ==================
    Remove the "x" from my email address
    Jerry Stuckle
    JDS Computer Training Corp.
    jstucklex@attglobal.net
    ==================

  10. Re: Which distro?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    >> Darren Salt wrote:
    >>> I demand that Jerry Stuckle may or may not have written...
    >>>
    >>>> John Hasler wrote:
    >>> [snip]
    >>>>> Exim does not require Mysql.
    >>>
    >>>> My Exim installation does - and therein lies the problem. The Exim
    >>>> which
    >>>> is supplied with Debian replaces mine on an upgrade, and all email
    >>>> stops
    >>>> working.
    >>>
    >>> Then build your own *packaged* versions (you should add an entry to
    >>> debian/changelog, modifying the version number by adding something like
    >>> "+local1"), install them (use dpkg) & mark them as "held" (aptitude
    >>> allows
    >>> this).
    >>>
    >>> To build, use "debuild binary" (requires devscripts) or, if you want
    >>> a source
    >>> package containing your changes to be built as well, "debuild".
    >>>
    >>> Upgrading any given modified package should be fine, so long as you
    >>> put your
    >>> changes in whatever patch system the source package uses or you can
    >>> readily
    >>> identify them in the .diff.gz.
    >>>
    >>> [snip]

    >>
    >> Which is a heck of a lot more work than the customer is willing to pay
    >> for. And every time we need to change something, we need to create a
    >> new build. As it is, I have build scripts for what I need - and they
    >> work fine. For instance, I just had to add one option into the PHP
    >> build. It was just a matter of adding one line to the script and
    >> rebuild PHP.
    >>
    >> They are not going to pay to completely redo the package system for
    >> their need. Which is why I need a package-less distro.
    >>

    >
    > The difference between a package-free installation and your setup is
    > that you've created your own 'package', which nothing else can or will
    > know about. This is begging for pain.


    For you, maybe. But not for someone who's been administering Unix for
    over 25 years - long before either Linux or packages.

    So rather than tell me what I should be doing because YOU depend on
    package systems, please just answer my question.

    This is exactly why I hesitated asking in this newsgroup.

    --
    ==================
    Remove the "x" from my email address
    Jerry Stuckle
    JDS Computer Training Corp.
    jstucklex@attglobal.net
    ==================

  11. Re: Which distro?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    >> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    >>>> John Hasler wrote:
    >>>>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
    >>>>>> Because even a minimal Debian depends on hooks in MySQL and others.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Huh??? I have no idea what you mean by that.
    >>>>
    >>>> Maybe I'm wrong - but the smallest Debian I've installed has to have
    >>>> a Debian user for MySQL, has special config files for MySQL, etc.
    >>>> Same for other products like Exim.
    >>>>
    >>>> Example - last time I upgraded files, it upgraded pam.
    >>>> Unfortunately, I don't use standard pam for administration. The
    >>>> result was no way to ssh into the system.
    >>>>
    >>>> This system also uses MySQL heavily for mail processing - Exim and
    >>>> qpopper. Attempting to update some other files resulted in Exim
    >>>> attempting to be updated - which would have broken all mail processing.
    >>>>
    >>>> As I said - too many things are tied together with Debian's package
    >>>> manager. And too many thing are tied together in the system itself.
    >>>
    >>> This is not a Debian specific problem. It's a software suite problem.
    >>> It's nightmarish to test and debug and maintain compatibility with
    >>> multiple versions of multiple related packages, and it's compounded
    >>> by software that ignores the 'UNIX File System Hierarchy', has no
    >>> 'installation' procedures, and generally ignores the lessons of
    >>> software management of the last few decades.
    >>>
    >>> Package managers try to keep the requirements and version
    >>> compatibilities linked. You ignore them at your own peril, especially
    >>> for tools like MySQL that have lots of add-ons which may not be
    >>> compatible without some version control, or without the patches to
    >>> aid compatibility maintained.
    >>>
    >>>> Debian's package system works well if you're using the standard
    >>>> system - but not that well if you have a heavily customized one.
    >>>> But unfortunately, when you update the base components, sometimes
    >>>> the other packages get updated, also.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> This is when you go through extra steps to maintain your own software
    >>> repository. I've done so with RPM, not apt, but if you want this
    >>> level of control you have to tweak anything with a package management
    >>> sytem.

    >>
    >> My question is not how to maintain the packages. I don't need to be
    >> told how YOU think it should be done. I've been doing this for over
    >> 40 years, and know what I'm doing.
    >>
    >> My question is exactly what I asked. I need a distro which can proved
    >> a kernel and networking, and nothing else. I will manage the rest.
    >>

    >
    > No such thing. glibc and shells, documentation tools like 'man', shell
    > utilities such as 'ls' and 'rm', disk partitioning utilities, network
    > utilities, etc. benefit from version management. Without that, you don't
    > have an OS, you have a kernel. And building from *THAT* is probably not
    > in your client's budget.


    I consider all that part of the kernel - not just the compiled kernel,
    but part of the basic package.

    But rather than split hairs, how about answering my question. It's
    obvious what I mean.

    Or are you too dependent on packages to understand there may be a better
    way - a way which has been in use in not only Unix but precursors to
    Unix for the over 40 years I've been in computers?

    Just because YOU need packages doesn't mean they are applicable for
    every installation.


    --
    ==================
    Remove the "x" from my email address
    Jerry Stuckle
    JDS Computer Training Corp.
    jstucklex@attglobal.net
    ==================

  12. Re: Which distro?

    Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    >>> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    >>>>> John Hasler wrote:
    >>>>>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
    >>>>>>> Because even a minimal Debian depends on hooks in MySQL and others.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Huh??? I have no idea what you mean by that.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Maybe I'm wrong - but the smallest Debian I've installed has to
    >>>>> have a Debian user for MySQL, has special config files for MySQL,
    >>>>> etc. Same for other products like Exim.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Example - last time I upgraded files, it upgraded pam.
    >>>>> Unfortunately, I don't use standard pam for administration. The
    >>>>> result was no way to ssh into the system.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This system also uses MySQL heavily for mail processing - Exim and
    >>>>> qpopper. Attempting to update some other files resulted in Exim
    >>>>> attempting to be updated - which would have broken all mail
    >>>>> processing.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As I said - too many things are tied together with Debian's package
    >>>>> manager. And too many thing are tied together in the system itself.
    >>>>
    >>>> This is not a Debian specific problem. It's a software suite
    >>>> problem. It's nightmarish to test and debug and maintain
    >>>> compatibility with multiple versions of multiple related packages,
    >>>> and it's compounded by software that ignores the 'UNIX File System
    >>>> Hierarchy', has no 'installation' procedures, and generally ignores
    >>>> the lessons of software management of the last few decades.
    >>>>
    >>>> Package managers try to keep the requirements and version
    >>>> compatibilities linked. You ignore them at your own peril,
    >>>> especially for tools like MySQL that have lots of add-ons which may
    >>>> not be compatible without some version control, or without the
    >>>> patches to aid compatibility maintained.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Debian's package system works well if you're using the standard
    >>>>> system - but not that well if you have a heavily customized one.
    >>>>> But unfortunately, when you update the base components, sometimes
    >>>>> the other packages get updated, also.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> This is when you go through extra steps to maintain your own
    >>>> software repository. I've done so with RPM, not apt, but if you want
    >>>> this level of control you have to tweak anything with a package
    >>>> management sytem.
    >>>
    >>> My question is not how to maintain the packages. I don't need to be
    >>> told how YOU think it should be done. I've been doing this for over
    >>> 40 years, and know what I'm doing.
    >>>
    >>> My question is exactly what I asked. I need a distro which can
    >>> proved a kernel and networking, and nothing else. I will manage the
    >>> rest.
    >>>

    >>
    >> No such thing. glibc and shells, documentation tools like 'man', shell
    >> utilities such as 'ls' and 'rm', disk partitioning utilities, network
    >> utilities, etc. benefit from version management. Without that, you
    >> don't have an OS, you have a kernel. And building from *THAT* is
    >> probably not in your client's budget.

    >
    > I consider all that part of the kernel - not just the compiled kernel,
    > but part of the basic package.


    They're not. Your client should hire someone else.

    > But rather than split hairs, how about answering my question. It's
    > obvious what I mean.
    >
    > Or are you too dependent on packages to understand there may be a better
    > way - a way which has been in use in not only Unix but precursors to
    > Unix for the over 40 years I've been in computers?


    My UNIX experience goes back to.... goodness. Minix.

    > Just because YOU need packages doesn't mean they are applicable for
    > every installation.


    Well, now. Any package sophisticated to be used on more than 3 systems
    deserves a package, in my professional opinion. Instead, you're trying to
    revert tools like MySQL to *avoid* the packaging of your selected . It's a bad
    idea and begging for pain. I get consulting pay to clean up after people like
    you who've been let go.

  13. Re: Which distro?

    John Hasler wrote:

    > Tayo'y Mga Pinoy writes:
    >> What you need to do is to compile the packages yourself, which is why I
    >> pointed you to Arch.

    >
    > I wrote:
    >> He could compile the packages himself perfectly well on Debian.

    >
    > Tayo'y Mga Pinoy writes:
    >> Yes, but the Arch method works better as you make your own packge that
    >> integrates into the package manager system.

    >
    > One can do likewise on Debian.


    Sure but not as easy

    --
    Tayo'y Mga Pinoy

  14. Re: Which distro?

    Jerry Stuckle wrote:

    [putolin]

    >> This is when you go through extra steps to maintain your own software
    >> repository. I've done so with RPM, not apt, but if you want this level
    >> of control you have to tweak anything with a package management sytem.

    >
    > My question is not how to maintain the packages. I don't need to be
    > told how YOU think it should be done. I've been doing this for over 40
    > years, and know what I'm doing.
    >
    > My question is exactly what I asked. I need a distro which can proved a
    > kernel and networking, and nothing else. I will manage the rest.
    >


    The perhaps you should have no trouble rolling you own.

    --
    Tayo'y Mga Pinoy

  15. Re: Which distro?

    Jerry Stuckle wrote:

    [putolin]

    >> No such thing. glibc and shells, documentation tools like 'man', shell
    >> utilities such as 'ls' and 'rm', disk partitioning utilities, network
    >> utilities, etc. benefit from version management. Without that, you don't
    >> have an OS, you have a kernel. And building from *THAT* is probably not
    >> in your client's budget.

    >
    > I consider all that part of the kernel - not just the compiled kernel,
    > but part of the basic package.
    >
    > But rather than split hairs, how about answering my question. It's
    > obvious what I mean.
    >
    > Or are you too dependent on packages to understand there may be a better
    > way - a way which has been in use in not only Unix but precursors to
    > Unix for the over 40 years I've been in computers?
    >
    > Just because YOU need packages doesn't mean they are applicable for
    > every installation.
    >
    >


    I don't think he needs or id dependant packages.

    Anyway what you are looking for then is maybe damn small linux or something
    like that as most larger distros will have some kind of package manager.
    That is just how it works, Try thinking of maintaining a distro and bingo
    you need a package manager.

    If I were you I would just pick a distro of your liking and email them a
    DVD, although I think faxing it would be much faster.

    --
    Tayo'y Mga Pinoy

  16. Re: Which distro?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    >> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    >>>> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >>>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
    >>>>>> John Hasler wrote:
    >>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle writes:
    >>>>>>>> Because even a minimal Debian depends on hooks in MySQL and others.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Huh??? I have no idea what you mean by that.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Maybe I'm wrong - but the smallest Debian I've installed has to
    >>>>>> have a Debian user for MySQL, has special config files for MySQL,
    >>>>>> etc. Same for other products like Exim.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Example - last time I upgraded files, it upgraded pam.
    >>>>>> Unfortunately, I don't use standard pam for administration. The
    >>>>>> result was no way to ssh into the system.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> This system also uses MySQL heavily for mail processing - Exim and
    >>>>>> qpopper. Attempting to update some other files resulted in Exim
    >>>>>> attempting to be updated - which would have broken all mail
    >>>>>> processing.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> As I said - too many things are tied together with Debian's
    >>>>>> package manager. And too many thing are tied together in the
    >>>>>> system itself.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This is not a Debian specific problem. It's a software suite
    >>>>> problem. It's nightmarish to test and debug and maintain
    >>>>> compatibility with multiple versions of multiple related packages,
    >>>>> and it's compounded by software that ignores the 'UNIX File System
    >>>>> Hierarchy', has no 'installation' procedures, and generally ignores
    >>>>> the lessons of software management of the last few decades.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Package managers try to keep the requirements and version
    >>>>> compatibilities linked. You ignore them at your own peril,
    >>>>> especially for tools like MySQL that have lots of add-ons which may
    >>>>> not be compatible without some version control, or without the
    >>>>> patches to aid compatibility maintained.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Debian's package system works well if you're using the standard
    >>>>>> system - but not that well if you have a heavily customized one.
    >>>>>> But unfortunately, when you update the base components, sometimes
    >>>>>> the other packages get updated, also.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This is when you go through extra steps to maintain your own
    >>>>> software repository. I've done so with RPM, not apt, but if you
    >>>>> want this level of control you have to tweak anything with a
    >>>>> package management sytem.
    >>>>
    >>>> My question is not how to maintain the packages. I don't need to be
    >>>> told how YOU think it should be done. I've been doing this for over
    >>>> 40 years, and know what I'm doing.
    >>>>
    >>>> My question is exactly what I asked. I need a distro which can
    >>>> proved a kernel and networking, and nothing else. I will manage the
    >>>> rest.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> No such thing. glibc and shells, documentation tools like 'man',
    >>> shell utilities such as 'ls' and 'rm', disk partitioning utilities,
    >>> network utilities, etc. benefit from version management. Without
    >>> that, you don't have an OS, you have a kernel. And building from
    >>> *THAT* is probably not in your client's budget.

    >>
    >> I consider all that part of the kernel - not just the compiled kernel,
    >> but part of the basic package.

    >
    > They're not. Your client should hire someone else.
    >


    Don't be pedantic. And now you're acting like an asshole. But that
    doesn't surprise me.

    >> But rather than split hairs, how about answering my question. It's
    >> obvious what I mean.
    >>
    >> Or are you too dependent on packages to understand there may be a
    >> better way - a way which has been in use in not only Unix but
    >> precursors to Unix for the over 40 years I've been in computers?

    >
    > My UNIX experience goes back to.... goodness. Minix.
    >


    Great. I go back long before Unix or Minix. How about TOS on a
    mainframe, for instance?

    But quite frankly, I really don't give a ****.

    >> Just because YOU need packages doesn't mean they are applicable for
    >> every installation.

    >
    > Well, now. Any package sophisticated to be used on more than 3 systems
    > deserves a package, in my professional opinion. Instead, you're trying
    > to revert tools like MySQL to *avoid* the packaging of your selected .
    > It's a bad idea and begging for pain. I get consulting pay to clean up
    > after people like you who've been let go.


    Whatever you want. That's not what I'm looking for. So if you can't
    answer my question, just go away.

    And I get paid big bucks for taking care of the messes idiots like you
    create.

    --
    ==================
    Remove the "x" from my email address
    Jerry Stuckle
    JDS Computer Training Corp.
    jstucklex@attglobal.net
    ==================

  17. Re: Which distro?

    Jerry Stuckle wrote:

    [putolin]

    >
    > No, I have no need to justify my answer. I asked a simple question.
    > Rather than get a simple answer, I've had a lot of "you should do it
    > this way instead" answers.
    >
    > Which is *exactly* why I've hesitated asking this question in this
    > newsgroup. Rather than answer the question, you tell me a bunch of
    > other things I should be doing.
    >
    > Sorry - I've been working with Unix long before Linux or any package
    > system was ever in place. I know how to administer the system. I'm
    > just wanting to get rid of the @#$% package system. Maybe it's good for
    > you. But it's not for me or my customer.
    >
    > So rather than tell me what I should be doing. How about just answering
    > my basic question?
    >


    We did, It's just that you are not listening and trying to fight the system
    when instead of trying to understand and work with the system.

    The package manager just should not get in the way.

    I still don't see why ABS would not work for you. I choose that system
    precisely because of the things you are having problems with.

    Maybe you should just make your very own Jerry Stuckle distro?

    --
    Tayo'y Mga Pinoy

  18. Re: Which distro?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    [putolin]

    >>
    >> They are not going to pay to completely redo the package system for
    >> their need. Which is why I need a package-less distro.
    >>

    >
    > The difference between a package-free installation and your setup is that
    > you've created your own 'package', which nothing else can or will know
    > about. This is begging for pain.


    And the beating that goes with that pain.

    --
    Tayo'y Mga Pinoy

  19. Re: Which distro?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia writes:
    > My UNIX experience goes back to.... goodness. Minix.


    And mine goes back to System III and 4.2BSD. I've administered Unix
    without package management, and with it. With is better. The key word,
    however, is _with_. Against won't work.

    This is for Debian, but the same basic approach will work for any major
    distribution:

    1) Install the Standard system.
    2) Install the build-essential package.
    3) Remove the package-management packages. You'll need to use "--force",
    but it can be done.
    4) Download, alter, and compile upstream packages to your heart's content.
    5) When you need to update any of the packages initially installed in
    step 1 or 2 do as in step 4.

    Most of us learned to stop pounding our heads against this particular brick
    wall years ago, but some people evidently enjoy these things...
    --
    John Hasler
    john@dhh.gt.org
    Dancing Horse Hill
    Elmwood, WI USA

  20. Re: Which distro?

    Jerry Stuckle wrote:

    [putolin]

    >> The difference between a package-free installation and your setup is
    >> that you've created your own 'package', which nothing else can or will
    >> know about. This is begging for pain.

    >
    > For you, maybe. But not for someone who's been administering Unix for
    > over 25 years - long before either Linux or packages.
    >
    > So rather than tell me what I should be doing because YOU depend on
    > package systems, please just answer my question.
    >
    > This is exactly why I hesitated asking in this newsgroup.
    >


    www.distrowatch.org

    You happy now?

    --
    Tayo'y Mga Pinoy

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast