C++ compatibility package dropped

[Paul Iadonisi]

On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 23:30 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:

[snip]

> I don't think you work for Red Hat, but regardless it says on the Fedora
> about page:

  Well, I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the rest of your
message, but I guess I'm now outed.  ;-)  As of about a month ago, I do
work for Red Hat.  But certainly not in development and likely don't
have any more direct influence than anyone else on this list as a result
of my employment.

>  "The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to
>   build a complete, general purpose operating system"
> 
> which by definition means it needs to take the universe into
> consideration.

  That's quite a leap.  By whose definition?

>  If it doesn't then it's not, by any widely accepted
> definition of the word, an operating system.

  So VxWorks is not an operating system?  SymbianOS (sp?)?  PalmOS?
QNX?  None of those are what I would call general purpose, but they sure
are operating systems.

> One of the goals is:
> 
>  "Create a complete general-purpose operating system with capabilities
>   equivalent to competing operating systems"
> 
> Windows and MacOS have good backwards compatibility, and that's a
> capability.

  Depends.  Personally, I wouldn't call backwards compatibility a
'capability', per se.  It's preserving old capability, so in that sense,
yes.

>  So we need to match it.

  No, we don't.  But if someone wants, they are free to set up a Fedora
Compat repo, complete with kernels without nptl (if that's possible) and
gcc/glibc packages that provide older compat-* pieces to allow older
apps to run.

> Another goal is:
> 
>  "Provide a robust development platform for building software,
>   particularly open source software."
> 
> But a platform that constantly shifts, changes, and in which parts
> disappear at a moments notice is not robust.

  For the particular issue you bring up in the beginning of this thread,
all that is required is to package your product according to Fedora
standards and provide a yum repo.

> Yet another goal is:
> 
>  "Emphasize usability and a "just works" philosophy in selecting default
>   configuration and designing features."
> 
> But dropping GCC 3.3 C++ support from the default configuration makes it
> less Just Works and more like the Linux we know from the old days:
> requires fiddling and expertise to make it work.

  A mime type entry to bring up a little usermode enabled applet when a
'.repo' file into /etc/yum.repos.d/ would be a nice addition to the
distro.  For those who want their apps to Just Work with Fedora Core,
provide an rpm, a yum repo, and an app.repo file.  Or, take submissions
from your users who care and are capable to provide it.
  I interpret Just Works somewhat different than you.  And that is that
everything *within the distro (and extras)* should Just Work.

> I think you see my point.

  Oh, I do.  I just don't agree.  And on top of that, I believe you
picked and chose what you like out of that list of objectives.  I see
nothing in there specifically about backward compatibility, and there's
a glaring absence of mention of anything to do with proprietary software
in particular.  That wasn't an oversight.
  And there are a number of statements like "exclusively from open
source software" and "leading edge of open source technology, by
adopting and helping develop new features and version upgrades" and
"encouragement and support exists for third party packaging" that, to
me, imply that those who crafted these objectives were deliberate in not
mentioning backward compatibility or proprietary software or software
not properly packaged.

-- 
-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets