Kiss Linux – A distribution with a focus on less is more

Post by vinay427 » Thu, May 21, 2020, 11:48 AM UTC

wchar_t wrote: post #36

danielscrubs wrote: post #13

I loved the idea (git everything!) until I read this: "How do I remove a package and all of its dependencies? [...] The package manager does not do recursive dependency removal on removal of a package. This error-prone automation will not be added to the package manager. "

Well, then again, many other package managers don't either. For instance XBPS and Pacman. EDIT: I'm wrong, see below.

Post by throwaway023421 » Thu, May 21, 2020, 12:08 PM UTC

pampa wrote: post #18

danielscrubs wrote: post #13

I loved the idea (git everything!) until I read this: "How do I remove a package and all of its dependencies? [...] The package manager does not do recursive dependency removal on removal of a package. This error-prone automation will not be added to the package manager. "

This might seem like a limitation. But you can provide a base system with a toolchain & xorg with known dependencies and a limited set of packages (like a BSD base system). Then for every big and complex app clone that base system and build the app in a chroot/sandbox or container. That way you get the app and dont pollute the base system and uninstalling is just rm -rf On every distro uninstalling packages never rea…

Post by qhwudbebd » Thu, May 21, 2020, 12:27 PM UTC

letientai299 wrote: post #43

* Based on musl libc, busybox and the Linux kernel. As some one who is working on Go ecosystem, this drops my interesting immediately. Using musl libs means a lot of tools can't be used on this OS unless we install the glibc.

Post by stutonk » Thu, May 21, 2020, 12:39 PM UTC

goldenkey wrote: post #45

Kototama wrote: post #22

> Uses a package manager written in less than 1000 lines of POSIX sh (excluding blank lines and comments). Enough to get 20 bugs :-). I wish there was a good standard alternative to bash (sh in this case) for shell programming. Otherwise I like the spirit, it's a good match with collapse os ;-)

One thing that irks me is the verbosity of simply renaming file extensions of all files in a directory. On Windows: ren ∗.js ∗.mjs On Unix: for x in ∗.js; do mv "$x" "${x%.js}.mjs"; done Feels like shells should have one line list comprehensions without the obtruse do/done. Are there any shell enhancements like zsh or the like, that make simple list operations less verbose?

Post by cpach » Thu, May 21, 2020, 12:43 PM UTC

Kototama wrote: post #30

rwnspace wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain more re: bugs? Dylan Araps sort of specialises in well-written (ba)sh and iirc uses shellcheck meticulously. I ask not to be combative in case you're just making a casual joke - more I'd like understand how bugs might creep in to (ba)sh code - even if say, one follows shellcheck and is as competent as Dylan.

I saw that after posting. It's not a critic of Dylan's work, more a critic of how difficult it is to write good bash code. Your comment on shellcheck and Dylan expertise just confirm it. It's like C, you could write safe C but it's very difficult. I wish there was a language with the ubiquity of Bash but modern and safe.