Re: The Kernel

[George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org>]

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Rick Jones wrote:

> You are confused, and confusing others.  There is "The Linux core" as
> the absolute foundation.  On top of that is "The Distro Base", which you
> are referring to as core and also think others are talking about when
> they are talking about "The Linux core" *not* the SEUL "base".

Ok, lets get our terminology straight :) 

In my mind there are three parts.

1) The linux core
2) The distribution base
3) The extended distribution

The linux core is basicly a spec. 

The distribution base is a set of software components and a specification
including filesystem layout, policy, and package management.

The extended distribution is all the other components that may or may not
be installed at any given time that make up the complete distribution.

No single one of them can exist on its own, it is built upon the one
before it.


How is that?

> 
> > It is not enough to say that a system must have ld.so, GCC, and libc5, we
> > must enforce a version range. Then a person can look at their system and
> > say .. cool, I have SEUL 1.3 and they will know that any software that
> > says "Requires SEUL 1.3" will work on their system.
> 
> Again.  Incorrect.  It would be "...cool, I have a Linux 1.3 core". 
> This Linux core can be in whatever distro, not just SEUL.

Correct.  The problem is, Linux is only the kernel.  We need a name for
the SEUL Linux Core spec to differentiate it from the SEUL Linux
distribution. Linux 1.3 is a development kernel now obsolete. How about we
call it just plain Core?  Core 1.0 compliant?

> Compliant, how?!?  Lets say Word Perfect adds uucp handling how in the
> hell are they going to know how to do it?  A lame example, granted, but
> I think with some imagination you can see my point.

Because they will make a call to uucico, uux, uutraf or some other program
that DOES know where to find the stuff.  In other words, it does not
matter if cnews has its configs in /var/lib/news or in /etc/news as long
as inews and rnews work.  You are really never going to get other
commercial distributionsd to change until they are forced to because of
the economic bottom line.  It will be baseball in October in Wrigley Field
before Red Hat adopts dpkg or changes their init structure.  By the same
token, Debian is not likely to adopt rpm or Red Hat's init structure. Lets
not doom ourselves from the start.  We can set realistic reachable goals
and extend them as we improve.  

> 
> There has to be a set standard for file location of Linux wide files. 
> Distro specific files can go in an addition to the standard if they
> want.  Then a vender is going to know exactly where it is since they are
> aiming at that particular distro's files.

Right, Debian already has that.  I think you will find that in the Policy
Manual.

> That's the point.  A vendor should be able to create *one* version of
> there software and have it work on all "Linux core compliant" distro's. 
> Otherwise it's no different than what we have now.  An environment in
> which vendors don't feel compfortable bothering with.

<sigh>  You are repeating what I said. Anyone can create any app, install
the binary in /usr/local/bin or /opt/<packagename> and, if the correct
ld.so, libc and other supporting libs are present on the system, it should
run. If the system is Core 1.0 compliant and the program is Core 1.0
compliant, the program binary should run. I think we are speaking about
the same thing here but I am not sure. :)   Now, if the vendor wants to
put it in dpkg format and have the package install ts pieces into the OS
and register itself in the package management database, we are NOW talking
about being SEUL Base compliant.  Two different concepts.  If the package
is SEUL Base compliant, it will be able to warn you when you try to delete
something that it depends on.  Hopefully, enough vendors will want to be
SEUL complaint that we start seeing some real software out there for it.



> First project on the distro side should be to develop the Linux core,
> since it is what the SEUL distro will be built on.  Then move on to the
> distro itself.  Otherwise you are duplicating your efforts.

This might be the crux of the problem right here.  The core is simply a
list of things that the base must contain.  The sources for these
components are available at all the usual Linux FTP sites (sunsite, etc)

Here is what core is:

GCC V???
ld.so V???
libc5 V???
libc6 V???
Linux V2.0.32
etc.

The core is not "bootable" but is a list of components that a bootable
system claiming Core compliance must contain. 

Ok, fine, lets get on IRC and "develop" the core tonite or whenever is
good for folks.  We are probably talking about a list of at most a dozen
things.

George Bonser 
If NT is the answer, you didn't understand the question. (NOTE: Stolen sig)
http://www.debian.org
Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.