[haiku-development] Re: What for does SAT solver needed for package management?
- From: Kurtis Mullins <kurtis.mullins@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:56:06 -0400
So -- if people did provide a way to use "fat packages" and started
distributing them, that probably wouldn't pick up well? At least with the
core team? I kind of see a potential disconnect here. Sort of like what is
going on with Macs. You can get most of your software as essentially fat
packages but anything an actual developer needs has to be provided using a
solution like brew or compiled from scratch.
I completely see that idea that an infrastructure would need
dynamically-linked applications. As a Linux user -- I agree 100%. However,
I never thought of Haiku as a server platform or really taking any more
duty than being a desktop-oriented operating system. Other than the quick
security fixes that can be performed on linked dependencies, are there any
other benefits to using dynamically linked applications in this type of an
environment?
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Stephan Aßmus <superstippi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 19.06.2012 11:50, David Given wrote:
> [...]
>
> Additionally, and most importantly, fat binaries don't allow security
>> updates. Someone finds another libpng buffer overflow? On a system like
>> Debian you can just replace the libpng shared library and fix it
>> everwhere. On a fat binary system you can't fix it *ever*, because
>> you've got a zillion copies of libpng embedded everywhere, in a zillion
>> different versions, and some of the developers aren't going to update
>> their apps. (Debian explicitly forbids fat binaries for precisely this
>> reason.)
>>
>
> Exactly, that is the whole point. I am quite tired of users still arguing
> pro application bundles because the space taken up by duplicated libs
> doesn't matter. Yes, it doesn't matter these days, but that's *not* the
> main benefit of shared libraries! And this point has been made over and
> over.
>
>
> (To be honest, I personally think that Debian have done a pretty decent
>> job with their packaging architecture, and that it's really not worth
>> trying to solve all the problems that they've already solved. Haiku
>> could do *much* worse than just recompiling dpkg and apt and leaving it
>> at that. Most of the work will be in the packaging policies, anyway.)
>>
>
> The thing is though, some people have put a lot of thought and research
> into the plan for the Haiku package management solution. And I trust them.
> I followed the discussion and everything they said made sense to me and
> they considered a lot of situations, use-cases and potential problems. For
> example, can using apt handle the problem that Haiku has three possible
> install locations for a package?
>
> That being said, nobody prevents anybody from doing what you propose, but
> either nobody bothered, or everyone is afraid such a solution would not be
> included in the Haiku code base, if it's just a "quick hack".
>
> Best regards,
> -Stephan
>
>
Other related posts:
