On 2017-08-30 9:05 am, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>> Symlinks have always been a hack due to Unix' lack of a proper
>> namespaces approach. Plan 9 later fixed this by introducting a proper
>> namespaces approach[1] - but even today unices (incl. Linux) have
>> almost ignored the learnings of Plan 9 with some exceptions.
>
> You do have union filesystems and mount namespaces in Linux. Actual
> businesses are running them in prod and betting billions on it.
>
Neat. I'll take a look at that.
>> In terms of a packaging manager, I'm a proponent of the idea I
>> introduced with stali as well. It does not require a package
>> "manager", but uses git for the rootfs overlay instead. If you want a
>> certain version of the system, you check out the required version from
>> /.git.
>
> This is excellent for the base system, but it leaves a lot of problems
> unsolved, especially for managing optional/third-party software.
>
> Having two separate package management strategies for base & everything
> else is duplicated effort solving common problems, and added mental
> overhead for both developers and users.
>
I concur. Double the approach, quadruple the bugs.
--
- fao_
PGP fingerprint: 739B 6C5C 3DE1 33FA
"Too enough is always not much!"
Received on Wed Aug 30 2017 - 17:37:25 CEST