Re: /usr/local news

Guys (and gals),

I am not sure if this is going to be helpful, but next few weeks I will be
interacting with the Team Ubuntu Singapore group and planning some agenda
for Software Freedom Day.

As autopackage advocate, I will definitely highlight the paramount
importance of autopackage to the audience and see what feedback I get.

Please let me know if there is anything else  I might need to take note of,
thanks!!



Best Regards,

Rykel™
The Team™ Asia
http://tinyurl.com/TeamAsia
+65 8400 2102 (Singapore)
+6 013 4008749 (Malaysia)
+84 93 2643369 (Vietnam)

gmail.msn.yahoo.skype.twitter.delicious.ebay.gizmo5.meebo: rykel98 | aol:
aenrykel | icq: 22768140




2008/8/23 Hongli Lai <[email protected]>

> Isak Savo wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Damjan Jovanovic <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I am hereby declaring that my attempts to convert a few commonly used
>>> open source libraries to support /usr/local have failed :-(.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry to hear that, although I'm also not completely surprised...
>> It's a hard current you're trying to swim against.
>>
>>  In brighter news, in Ubuntu 8.04, libc does support /usr/local. Looks
>>> like /usr/local is supported by libc by default now,
>>> /etc/ld.so.conf.d/libc.conf contains these 2 lines:
>>> # libc default configuration
>>> /usr/local/lib
>>>
>>> Seeing as libc was the only major library in Ubuntu that didn't
>>> support /usr/local, it looks like we can now whitelist Ubuntu 8.04 as
>>> a distribution on which installing to /usr/local does work properly.
>>>
>>
>> This is indeed good news. If complaints arise again, I guess we can
>> implement the whitelist code and immediately whitelist ubuntu 8.04.
>>
>>  But it simply isn't going to work this way, with a tiny group of us
>>> caring about cross-distribution compatibility and fd.o standards, and
>>> the vast majority not knowing or caring, and even opposing us. I'm
>>> contributing to Wine and Java - Linux as a platform for native
>>> applications is largely dead to me at the moment.
>>>
>>
>> :-(
>>
>> I'd like to write some encouraging words here - that we're getting
>> there and all that... but I kind of share the same thoughts as you.
>> :-/
>>
>> But hey - who knows... LSB has lately gotten a lot of focus so who
>> knows what happens after the 4.0 release is out :)
>>
>> /me is trying to be optimistic
>>
>> -Isak
>>
>
> It's sad to see that nothing has changed after all these years. :( But good
> luck guys, I really admire your dedication!
>
> From what I can see, it was and still is more of a political problem than a
> technical problem. The challenge lies in finding supporters, not actually
> writing code. We're in a rather strange situation right now: the people who
> are in charge don't care, while the people who complain that Linux software
> installation should be easier aren't in charge, and both groups have already
> decided that the other group consists of idiots. On top of that, the people
> who aren't in charge, but either don't care or oppose to the idea, are very
> vocal.
>
> I still read complaints about Linux software installation and cross-distro
> compatibility on places like Slashdot and OSNews. Would it be a good idea
> unite as many of these people as possible in an effort to convince
> distributions and the rest of the community that people care?
>
> A while ago I had contacted the person who's behind the LSB packaging spec
> (Denis Washington) and had a debate with him. Despite opposition from
> community members - not unlike the opposition that our efforts got - he was
> fairly confident that the LSB will be alright. Perhaps you guys should
> contact him, he might be in a better position to lobby with distributions.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>