3 ms·

Even with the same package managers, packages are still incompatible from different repositories because of differing assumptions about the underlying system an

Even with the same package managers, packages are still incompatible from different repositories because of differing assumptions about the underlying system and differing packages for the dependencies. Converting between the differing package formats is actually relatively easy and tools like `alien` exist, that do that.

oblio 10y ago
I know about that, I actually hate those "underlying system" differences even more. With a bit of forethought we could have covered all the use cases and not have silly things such as /etc/redhat-release vs /etc/debian_version.[1] There's no reason we couldn't have had a "/etc/distro-info" with a standardized format for writing down the distro name, the platform and the full distro version (branch/release, minor release, revision, build number, etc.). And there's thousands of these differences. As I said: social/political/historical reasons bringing us down. [1] I know about lsb_release, but that's an example of an afterthought, not a part of the initial design.
- vamega 10y ago
  "/etc/os-release" is present in most newer releases. Sounds exactly what you want from "/etc/distro-info"
  - oblio 10y ago
    Whaddayaknow, I missed that file. Apparently it's a Freedesktop standard (https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release....). My point still stands, something like this should have been included from the first releases of Linux distros, 20 years ago. And that was just a random example I came up with after 2 minutes of trying to prove a point. There's many, many more like it. Also, just for kicks I took at look at the spec and... 1. ANSI_COLOR is funny: > A suggested presentation color when showing the OS name on the console. This should be specified as string suitable for inclusion in the ESC [ m ANSI/ECMA-48 escape code for setting graphical rendition. This field is optional. Example: "ANSI_COLOR="0;31"" for red, or "ANSI_COLOR="1;34"" for light blue. 2. And some parts are scary: > parameters may be set using os-release Oh-oh! Everything is optional! That's really bad for a RFC.

oblio 10y ago

I know about that, I actually hate those "underlying system" differences even more. With a bit of forethought we could have covered all the use cases and not have silly things such as /etc/redhat-release vs /etc/debian_version.[1] There's no reason we couldn't have had a "/etc/distro-info" with a standardized format for writing down the distro name, the platform and the full distro version (branch/release, minor release, revision, build number, etc.). And there's thousands of these differences. As I said: social/political/historical reasons bringing us down. [1] I know about lsb_release, but that's an example of an afterthought, not a part of the initial design.

vamega 10y ago
"/etc/os-release" is present in most newer releases. Sounds exactly what you want from "/etc/distro-info"
- oblio 10y ago
  Whaddayaknow, I missed that file. Apparently it's a Freedesktop standard (https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release....). My point still stands, something like this should have been included from the first releases of Linux distros, 20 years ago. And that was just a random example I came up with after 2 minutes of trying to prove a point. There's many, many more like it. Also, just for kicks I took at look at the spec and... 1. ANSI_COLOR is funny: > A suggested presentation color when showing the OS name on the console. This should be specified as string suitable for inclusion in the ESC [ m ANSI/ECMA-48 escape code for setting graphical rendition. This field is optional. Example: "ANSI_COLOR="0;31"" for red, or "ANSI_COLOR="1;34"" for light blue. 2. And some parts are scary: > parameters may be set using os-release Oh-oh! Everything is optional! That's really bad for a RFC.