Linux fat/bloated

[Peter]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Marc Lijour wrote:

> Mandriva also came up with an easier install scheme with the kiosk: 
> http://wwwnew.mandriva.com/en/company/press/pr/mandriva_pioneers_new_linux_distribution_systems

,,, snip

What I was trying to say is, that the depth of the dependency tree must 
be reduced. No package manager will fix that, but prelinking libraries 
into larger libraries by usage group, and distributing those as packages 
would likely fix the problem. As an example, most KDE apps depend on a 
dozen libraries, each. It makes sense to combine that dozen libraries 
into one, and distribute that as a single package. Then a set of KDE 
libs would depend only one that (large) package. If a library changes 
in the package, then a new edition of the package appears, and *that* 
is upgraded, thus guaranteeing that the dependencies are maintained.

This effectively shifts the responsability to keep track of dependencies 
to the aggregator, from the end user where they are now. In fact, this 
is already so, but it is neither explicit nor enforced.

No new package manager is required, but someone has to start building 
and maintaining the aggregate libs. The people in the best position to 
do this, are large distribution aggregators, like Debian, RH and SuSe. 
This would also reduce the pain that occurs when libraries are partially 
upgraded and the whole slew of dependencies must be upgraded to follow. 
Later, applications that depend on the aggregate could be compiled 
against an aggregate stub layer, added to the aggregate and exporting 
its required functions. That might open the way to dynamic (runtime) 
library selection sometime in the future.

$0.002, from a guy who has been to dependency hell and back several 
times in the last ~10 years of continuous Linux use,

Peter

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml