From: Eric Zen (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jan 28 2003 - 12:59:52 EST
On 2003.01.28 04:51 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> I have SuSE 8.0 running on my computer. I downloaded Abiword 1.0.4 and
> 1.1.3 - both as binaries and source.
I take it you tried binaries first (as having both source and binaries would otherwise be redundant.
> Unfortunately, I cannot install either of them as certain dependencies are
> not satisfied.
Which dependencies would those be?
> I know Abiword as supplied by usr-local-bin are specified SuSE 8.1
> compliant only, but it really begs the question:
That's really James Ogley's domain (literally too ;o)
> Why do I need to upgrade
> the whole SuSE setup just to run Abiword?
SuSE is infamous for drastic changes between versions. This is why the idea of using SuSE's "upgrade" option is more of source of amusement or frustration (depending on what side you're on).
> Why can't there be a single
> binary that runs on all releases/distros just as Windows binaries are?
The concept of the linux distribution is remarkably different than that of any other operating system.
The distributions customize the structure to fit specific needs (similar to WinCE versus Win2000, but Win9x remains unchanged in its underlying structure).
However, it uses the exact same base and higher level software and options that other distributions use (similar to Solaris formulae but completely opposite of HPUX vs AIX).
As a result, you have something that's just different enough to throw off creating a binary (as binaries already posses absolute paths to libraries and assumptions as to their particular version series, like 1.2.x, so as to use the same structural framework).
As you might guess with the last part of that explanation, some pathways (/usr/local to /usr/share), libraries (xdisplay-base 2.2 vs libpng2.2 or libpng1.1 vs libpng1.2) and similar core properties (optional programmes, as how Abiword views images via xdisplay LISP(image magick) ) affect not only the difference in a distribution, but in their subversions as well.
Luckily, hopefully at least, as UnitedLinux solidifies its framework and builds policies for upgrading packages, you may start seeing packages of UL-spec1.2.rpm in a couple of years.
However, I wouldn't be one to hold my breath for that.
> It is becoming a big problem with almost all new packages, and I think this
> is going to severely limit acceptance of Linux. Unless software developers
> recognise this, Linux will remain the domain of nerds.
I think it's an issue of creating standards that would make software easier to generalize for in binary form, whereas source form is less of an issue (if you take a look at abi source, you'll find all POSIX compliant operating systems are handle by the unix directories, less often one for every form and version of unix on the face of the earth.
Je suis l'morse,
E. A. Zen
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
email@example.com with the word
unsubscribe in the message body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 28 2003 - 13:06:03 EST