[Exherbo-dev] GNU coreutils alternatives

Vasiliy Tolstov v.tolstov at selfip.ru
Fri Sep 18 07:23:28 UTC 2015


2015-09-17 23:35 GMT+03:00 Bernd Steinhauser <exherbo at bernd-steinhauser.de>:

> I actually had the same question.
>
> On 17/09/15 21:39, Kylie McClain wrote:
>
>> On 09/17/2015 03:18 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>>> What is the compelling reason that makes it worth spending any effort
>>> on this?
>>>
>> I have a few, actually.
>>
>> 1. It allows for more choice with respect to core parts of the system. I
>> wonder how quickly someone's going to crucify me for saying "choice" is
>> a reason. I believe it is reasonable to provide this option, it's not
>> that much different from how we provide the choice of libav over ffmpeg,
>> or libressl over openssl.
>>
> Well, this is not Gentoo. We don't like to introduce options just so there
> is an option.
>

Yes, this is not gentoo, but if we don't provide alternatives and options -
Exherbo have not big difference compared to Archlinux.


>
> 2. Making the core of the system more flexible and interchangeable will
>> allow for easier usage on systems with low memory, or any other system
>> where usage of programs normally used on embedded systems is more
>> desired than their heavier counterparts.
>>
> Terms like "heavier counterparts" are used quite often but there is no
> reliable definition on any term like that.
> And if people try to have a go at it, it very often proves them wrong.
> I'm just saying that you should be very careful with using terms like that.
>
> Anyway. I'm totally against too much flexibility in the basic system. All
> this will lead to is a long list of bugs and unforseen failures and
> consequences.
> It's different for libav/ffmpeg, as these don't belong to the basic
> system, so changing them will result in a more/less pleasing multimedia
> experience for people if it makes a change at all. And actually I think
> that we should remove this one as well, as I've seen quite a few people
> strongly advising against using libav (that was different some time ago).
> For libressl/openssl it's different as well, as—to my knowledge—they are
> compatible for any day2day use.
>
> I don't know if there are actually people building an embedded system
> based upon Exherbo. If there are any, please step up and clarify if these
> changes are necessary.
> If space and memory consumption really matters to them, I suspect they
> will make much more severe changes to the basic system than just replace a
> few binaries.
>
>>
>> This is actually my most important reason; the idea of having a single
>> package that can provide a lot of the base of the system without much
>> issue,s and take up less space than more full-featured is a very
>> appealing idea.
>>
> Does anybody really care about space on an Exherbo system (serious
> question)?
> (We are talking about a few MBs here at most.)
>

I'm care. I'm use exherbo on production to host user vps, and i need to
minimize base system , becasue all system goes to memory (diskless host
server).
SO i need to remove all unneded stuff. And i don't need to full featured
compiler and other tools in such case. I'm prebuild all stuff on build host
and use it.
So please don't think that nobody cares.


>
> 3. In the same way that the multiarch change proved as a test to things
>> like autotools, this can serve as a test to how alternative
>> implementations are out there and work just fine. I'm going to use that
>> phrase that everyone is probably tired of hearing me say now.
>> Prevents monoculture.
>>
> And sounds like a pointless exercise. I'd leave that sort of thing to the
> Gentoo guys and focus on things that are more useful.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against using a different tool to work
> with. I myself love zsh and I'm using that one instead of the standard
> (bash).
> But I would never even try to use it as a /bin/sh shell interpreter on
> Exherbo or even to try to use it for cave (which I guess would mean a lot
> of work).
> If you like one tool more than another use that. If you want to have it as
> a standard in your interactive shell, it's almost trivial to setup to shell
> for that. But leave the system standard as-is.
> In my opinion, we already have way too many alternatives modules.
>
> BR,
> Bernd
>




-- 
Vasiliy Tolstov,
e-mail: v.tolstov at selfip.ru
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.exherbo.org/pipermail/exherbo-dev/attachments/20150918/7ee6bdb9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Exherbo-dev mailing list