Slashdot Mirror


GoboLinux Compile -- A Scalable Portage?

LodeRunner writes "The GoboLinux team, featured about a year ago for creating a distro that does away with Unix paths such as /usr/bin and /lib and uses things like /System/Settings/X11 instead, just released a new release where they introduce their own alternative to Portage and similar systems: Compile. But is yet another source-based compilation system needed?" Read a bit more below on why the GoboLinux folks think so.

LodeRunner continues "We already have ebuilds, RPM .spec files, and whatnot. The argument for reinventing the wheel yet again was the observation that while developing apps to handle these files is easy, the task of maintaining the ever-growing database of compilation scripts is the real problem -- the huge package collection of Debian comes to mind. Compile took the extreme minimalistic approach, and its scripts ("recipes") are as small as can be: the script for a typical autoconf-based program takes two lines.

Knowledge for handling common situations is usually added to Compile itself instead of being coded in the script (for example, apps that need a separate build directory just add a needs_build_dir=yes line). The plan is to make Compile as smart as it can and the recipes as small as possible.

It remains to be seen whether this experiment of gauging differently the tradeoff between flexibility and simplicity will prove itself to be limiting or enlightening, but in the ~six months Compile has been in beta test by the people from the GoboLinux mailing list, over 500 recipes were written, ranging from Glibc and GCC up to KDE and the Linux kernel itself."

10 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. WHAT? by ajutla · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Does away with" /usr/bin and /lib?


    BLASPHEMY!!! They're SINNERS! How DARE they mess with the SACRED directory structure! Et cetera! Et cetera! Ad nauseam!


    ...In all seriousness, though, that does sound kind of like an interesting concept--might make things easier for people to understand. Me, I like my three letter unpronounceable paths all the same :)

  2. Uhmm by NitsujTPU · · Score: 5, Funny

    But is yet another source-based compilation system needed?

    Uhmm... I guess not, from now on, we'll do all of our compilations without source code... however that will supposedly be done.

  3. A job for ln? by sweet+'n+sour · · Score: 5, Interesting
    /System/Settings/X11
    mkdir /System

    mkdir /System/Settings

    ln -s /etc/X11/ /System/Settings/X11

    Couldn't this also work?

    1. Re: A job for ln? by mercan01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're trying to replace an arcane directory structure, not mask it.

  4. The shorter the better by Moth7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's much more difficult to make a typo in /etc than /System/Config. That's one of the godsends of the POSIX structure over that of Windows - /lib is easier to remember/type than C:\Windows\System32. And there are none of those annoying spaces in /usr/bin that exist in C:\Program Files.

  5. Screw that by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Blasphemy my ass. i have been using Linux, BSD, nd other UNIX derivatives for over 10 years now, and all I can say is THANK GOD.

    The /usr/bin, /etc, /usr/local concept is totally outdated. Having apps in their own directories eases maitenence, eases administration, and eases uninstallation. Think about it, if apps were in their own self contained directories, who even *needs* a package manger? To install, you extract the tar, to uninstall, delete the directory. Boom snap, done and done.

    Other than core system configuration and core libraries the whole system uses, I ideally think *any app should be totally confined to one directory level. IMO this is one thing Windows does right.

    1. Re:Screw that by McDutchie · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Other than core system configuration and core libraries the whole system uses, I ideally think *any app should be totally confined to one directory level. IMO this is one thing Windows does right.

      Except that many applications install their own DLL cruft under C:\WINDOWS anyway (Microsoft itself being one of the worst offenders), and that the program stops working if you move the application dir around, thus eliminating completely the usefulness of this concept.

      No, the OS that does this right is Mac OS X. Installing an app is as simple as copying the application package (basically just a directory), and you can put and move it anywhere.

  6. "Recipes" are a bad idea by RovingSlug · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Knowledge for handling common situations is usually added to Compile itself instead of being coded in the script ... It remains to be seen whether this experiment of gauging differently the tradeoff between flexibility and simplicity

    Yes, simplicity is good, but only in the context of the whole system. Here, you're just shifting complexity from the per-package scripts to the overall Compile package itself -- creating a large, central, monolithic service.

    Because it's centralized, over time, this is going to accumulate a lot crap and become opaque, obfuscated, and unmaintainable. Changes and maintenance to Compile will more significantly impact the contemporary set of recipes than, say, changes to Portage and ebuilds.

    It's easy to apply a good idea, like "simplicity", in too narrow of a scope -- to the detrement of the overall design. Better to think about it as balance of "package maintainability", "system maintainability", "barrier of entry", etc.

  7. Re:Non-issue by Jameth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, but who the hell starts them with capital letters?!?!?!

    Even with tab-completion, I just got my time quadrupled! Frickin' shift keys.

  8. Re:Non-issue by HishamMuhammad · · Score: 5, Informative

    Every modern shell supports case-insensitive tab-completion. And in GoboLinux, this is enabled by default.

    Try it, you might like it: on bash, just add

    set-completion-ignore-case on

    on your ~/.inputrc.