[Discuss] Debian 12 vs. WSL 1

[grg]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 11:04:23AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> Not really, no.  In 1994--at the time that I spoke of--
...
> So again, NO, when my environment caused me no headaches in regard to
> the issues Rich described, it's absolutely not because any developer
> or package maintainer was looking out for me.  Cuz that DID NOT
> HAPPEN.  It's entirely because my team did a good job setting up the
> environment and planning ahead to address these types of issues.  That
> may or may not have included creating symlinks.

by the late 80s, distributed software commonly had a 'configure' script
which (among other things) located the paths of executables and libraries
the software distribution needed.  the first step of installing such a
software package on your system was running './configure'.  if in the 90s
you ever read usenet news via rn or trn or rrn, have a look behind the
curtain (and note the $Id: 1997, fairly close to your stated epoch):

	https://github.com/acli/trn/blob/master/Configure

e.g. line 1200 starts a couple hundred lines of finding the right paths.
line 500 also begins a similar block.  notice how hard the script is
working so that when the software package is installed it knows exactly
where to find what it needs:
    paths='/bin /usr/bin /usr/local/bin /usr/ucb /usr/local /usr/lbin'
    paths="$paths /opt/bin /opt/local/bin /opt/local /opt/lbin"
    paths="$paths /usr/5bin /etc /usr/gnu/bin /usr/new /usr/new/bin /usr/nbin"
    paths="$paths /opt/gnu/bin /opt/new /opt/new/bin /opt/nbin"
    paths="$paths /sys5.3/bin /sys5.3/usr/bin /bsd4.3/bin /bsd4.3/usr/ucb"
    paths="$paths /bsd4.3/usr/bin /usr/bsd /bsd43/bin /usr/ccs/bin"
    paths="$paths /etc /usr/lib /usr/ucblib /lib /usr/ccs/lib"
    paths="$paths /sbin /usr/sbin /usr/libexec"

I think we can agree that this config script was indeed written and
extended by developers and ported and patched by maintainers.  so when rn
or trn or rrn worked on your system for you or other users, it was in fact
because of the effort of developers and maintainers, even if that effort
may not have been obviously visible.  I don't doubt that you added symlinks
on the systems you ran to make some things work better, so even if those
weren't obviously visible I'm sure you deserve your credit for that effort.
I just don't get why you're so all-caps adamant about denying others credit
for their effort.


> But you seem convinced that this is only about package management,

you might be misinterpreting my statements on usrmerge?  what I've said a
few times is that I believe usrmerge was pushed by package/distro
maintainers to solve *their* problems.  more specifically, their problems
are primarily porting, and sometimes developing, cross-platform software;
my first email on this detailed in its first paragraph that in particular,
porting software or applying a patch that references a bin/sbin/lib path
may require a fix pre-usrmerge, but post-usrmerge will require less or no
path-futzing effort.  in short, I've always been convinced the usrmerge
push is about reducing their ongoing porting and development effort.

note that "porting software" and "developing cross-platform software" are
a core focus of "compatibility with other unixes" -- so perhaps we're
reaching the same conclusion, even if I wouldn't characterize what I'm
saying as "only about package management?"  (but perhaps the above is
indeed what you mean when you say "only about package management?"
if so, then we're in full agreement.)

--grg