Re: Core

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

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Nick Mathewson wrote:

> >pppd
> >net-tools
> >GNU CC
> >binutils
> >make
> 
> Some mention has been made of putting these in the "networking layer"
> and the "development layer".  While I agree with this idea, I have
> my misgivings about farming such (potentially) key sections of the
> core out to different layers, unless those layers are also part of the
> core spec.

I got these from /usr/src/linux/Documentation/Changes and what was
required to compile and run a 2.0 kernel. Sure, these are mainly for
development.

The debian binutils package provides these binaries:

/usr/bin/size
/usr/bin/objdump
/usr/bin/nm
/usr/bin/ar
/usr/bin/strings
/usr/bin/strip
/usr/bin/ranlib
/usr/bin/c++filt
/usr/bin/objcopy
/usr/bin/as
/usr/bin/gasp
/usr/bin/gprof
/usr/bin/ld

I use strings a lot.  strip is useful too.

> Let me explain:
>  (1) I do not believe that development, networking, X, or so forth
>      should be a mandatory part of the core.

Ok, I agree with that.

>  (2) I _do_, however, believe that _if_ an installation elects to
>      include development support, networking support, or so on, it
>      should do so in a standardized manner.

Hence the standardized layers.  If it is a compliant development layer, it
will be standard.  At least that is what I think that is what the goal is.

> my /usr/bin need it, compared to the dozens that use ncurses.

Yeah, ncurses is pretty important.  We MIGHT also include newt IF enough
graphical programs begin using it.  What about dialog?  Most installation
programs and some configuration programs still use it until they migrate
to newt/whiptail.


> If those binaries can be optional, would it make sense to make slang
> optional as well?

I suppose .... be aware that Deity requires slang.

> Is the option necessary?  Does any system elect to use sh instead of bash?
> 
> >tcsh or csh
> 
> Is the option necessary?  Does any system elect to use csh in lieu of tcsh?

I was thinking POSIX here.  There are some envionments that require a
POSIX shell and bash is still not completely complient even when given the
--posix option.

> >A package management system.
> 
> I disagree.  Here's why:  the core exists for the sake of ensuring
> compatability between different distributions.  Clearly, it is not
> in our interest to require all distribs to use the same PM.  But if
> all that require is that _some_ package management system exist,
> I'm afraid I don't see how much compatability we've ensured.

I was hoping to establish the concept of package management as a standard
in Linux.  Even if it is the POSIX manager, most other unix systems have
some form of management.  It is not required, I was testing the water with
that one.

> I've got a project for tonight:  I'm going to go through my /bin, /sbin,
> /etc, and /lib to look for more ideas for a core.
> 
> I'll post whatever I come up with later in the evening.

Great. 

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.