Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Swapping GNU coreutils for uutils coreutils on Gentoo Linux

joshmcguigan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: Swapping GNU coreutils for uutils coreutils on Gentoo Linux

#121

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

nubinetwork wrote: post #57
M95D wrote: post #48

> Instead of modifying all the packages that depend on GNU coreutils (known as the package sys-apps/coreutils in Gentoo), I modified the GNU coreutils package to instead install uutils coreutils. That's not the way to do it (in Gentoo). He should have added coreutils to /etc/portage/profile/package.provided. Portage would then assume the package is installed even if it's not. This is used to install self-built binari…

I also cringed a little when I read that they used the same package name for their replacement, especially considering they were aware of virtuals and the alternatives frameworks... although I've never tried to do what they did, so maybe they had issues converting the entire portage tree to be compliant. I'll admit that it's a lot of work, but if you wanted to do it right, you'd have to put in that additional work.

I don't think this was meant to be "doing it right"; this was explicitly the quick and dirty way to test things.

Re: Swapping GNU coreutils for uutils coreutils on Gentoo Linux

#122

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

hulitu wrote: post #55

> Similar to busybox, coreutils uutils was being installed as a single binary, and each entrypoint (i.e. ls) was just a symlink to that binary. What can go wrong ? /s One tool to rule them all.

> What can go wrong ? /s

Okay but seriously - what would you expect to go wrong? Tools explicitly looking for and breaking on symlinks is a bug on their side; that's a perfectly reasonable approach to take.

Re: Swapping GNU coreutils for uutils coreutils on Gentoo Linux

#123

Post by pixelbeat »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #2

No, please don't! At least, not if you aren't equipped to handle the fallout yourself and not until these tools are further refined! I'm a fish-shell developer and I just dealt with a user that was getting bizarre test failures. Turns out the developers didn't account for basic things like the normalcy of `cat` having its output fd closed mid-stream (e.g. you are piping cat to something and that something exits befor…

Sounds like a case of: https://www.pixelbeat.org/programming/sigpipe_handling.html

uutils uses the coreutils test suite, so it makes sense to add a test case for that, which uutils will eventually get to. I'll do that now.

Re: Swapping GNU coreutils for uutils coreutils on Gentoo Linux

#124

Post by globular-toast »

prmoustache wrote: post #47
aulin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just disrespectful, it's stupid and dangerous. GPL is one of those exceptional things that shaped the world as it is today. These projects are nothing more than an attack to our freedom.

Your freedom is not the least impacted by the MIT or BSD licences. The software distributed is and remains free and open source.

The freedom of the master is not the least bit impacted by legalised slavery.

Re: Swapping GNU coreutils for uutils coreutils on Gentoo Linux

#125

Post by setopt »

DaSHacka wrote: post #104
setopt wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The separate paths were originally done for reasons These reasons were not originally philosophical in nature: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074... IMO, keeping /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin separate from /bin doesn’t serve any useful purpose except historical continuity. You can’t really get rid of those paths without breaking things (e.g. since /usr/bin/env is usually hardcoded in shebang…

`/usr/local/bin` is where manually installed packages go, and I've never seen it merged to `/bin` or `/usr/bin` on any *NIX system I've ever used. I use it all the time for custom scripts/programs I don't want the package manager to interfere with. https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/4186/what-is-usr-lo...

I am aware of its usage, but switched to installing things into separate folders in /opt many years ago. That way, it’s easy to uninstall stuff (rm the right subfolder), and you can install apps that don’t follow the Unix conventions into the same place (e.g. Matlab).

You’re right though, I haven’t seen any mainstream distributions (i.e. no GoboLinux) that removes /usr/local.

Re: Swapping GNU coreutils for uutils coreutils on Gentoo Linux

#126

Post by SpecialistK »

kosmozaut wrote: post #80
LightFog wrote: post #17

It’s a shame to see all this effort going toward replacing core GPL licensed utilities with permissive ones. It seems like a particularly common thing in the Rust community. It feels disrespectful of the intentions of the work that went into the tools that are being cloned.

What's wrong with the MIT license?

Nothing at all. Some people just prefer copyleft licenses and use hyperbole like "disrespectful" and "dangerous" to attack software with permissive licenses.

Re: Swapping GNU coreutils for uutils coreutils on Gentoo Linux

#127

Post by happymellon »

pjmlp wrote: post #99
happymellon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure who you are talking to, I didn't say anything about Apple not keeping up with Unix standards.

>...Apple spends a lot of effort breaking cross platform compatibility?

Which is half of a sentence and distorted the question.

> > There is a ton of cross pollination between mac and Linux software

> Do we have any good examples, because Apple spends a lot of effort breaking cross platform compatibility?

BuT aPpLe aRe UnIx CeRtIfiEd.

Doesn't mean there is any cross pollination from MacOS to Linux.

Re: Swapping GNU coreutils for uutils coreutils on Gentoo Linux

#128

Post by prmoustache »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #64
prmoustache wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your freedom is not the least impacted by the MIT or BSD licences. The software distributed is and remains free and open source.

But in the long run freedom could be impacted. Imagine this becoming popular. Then some proprietary fork happens, by some tech giant, which adds some feature that is great. Then lots of people, who did not care for GPL in the first place switch to that proprietary version, because ir is oh so much more convenient. Suddenly distros get pressure to use the new thing. Or people switch to whatever has the proprietary rep…

Most distros won't allow proprietary software. When mongodb switched license, most distros stopped providing it. Now that redis also became non-free, distros are pushing the free forks.

Re: Swapping GNU coreutils for uutils coreutils on Gentoo Linux

#129

Post by prmoustache »

lelanthran wrote: post #70
prmoustache wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your freedom is not the least impacted by the MIT or BSD licences. The software distributed is and remains free and open source.

> Your freedom is not the least impacted by the MIT or BSD licences. The software distributed is and remains free and open source. Only the original as delivered by the original dev-team. The derivatives can be, and often are, closed off. That's the opposite of "free and open source".

But nobody prevents you to continue using the free version. You do not lose anything.

Re: Swapping GNU coreutils for uutils coreutils on Gentoo Linux

#130

Post by prmoustache »

nicman23 wrote: post #79
prmoustache wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your freedom is not the least impacted by the MIT or BSD licences. The software distributed is and remains free and open source.

tell that to ie playstation users that basically use bsd and cannot use the computation of their device for nothing that sony does not permit. very freedom

That is unrelated to the license. They are still free to download and install FreeBSD on any arch supported by the project.
Post reply on HN