Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th Jan 2008 21:51 UTC
Linux "Curtis Knight, Isak Savo, and Taj Morton are the lead maintainers and developers of autopackage, a set of tools designed to let developers build and distribute distribution-neutral installation packages. In this interview, they share their vision of the project and where Linux packaging in general is going."
Thread beginning with comment 296617
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ...
by Joe User on Thu 17th Jan 2008 23:49 UTC in reply to "..."
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

The only advantage of Autopackage is for people who don't have access to the Internet. They can go to a cybercafe, grab themselves a few packages on a USB flash key, and when they arrive at home, they can copy the packages and install them without the need for a connection to the Internet. This would be a lot more painful with RPMs for instance.

Otherwise, installing a package is simple already, just launch your favorite package manager, type the name of your application, click "Install", wait 5 minutes and you're done.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Bobthearch on Fri 18th Jan 2008 04:09 in reply to "RE: ..."
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

OT: I have no idea why your post was rated -1. It's not off topic, insulting, or spam. Maybe people just don't like you?

Anyway, I boosted it up to "0". I think there may be some bugs to work out in the new OSNews rating system...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 18th Jan 2008 09:24 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Anyway, I boosted it up to "0". I think there may be some bugs to work out in the new OSNews rating system...


1) His trust levels are low, as such his comments start lower.

2) Don't complain about the rating system in the comments. It's off topic.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by MechR on Fri 18th Jan 2008 04:32 in reply to "RE: ..."
MechR Member since:
2006-01-11

That's if the software you want is in your distro's repository, which isn't always the case. For example, when I last used Mepis and Ubuntu (several releases ago), XnView debs were hard to find. And mplayerplug-in packages were out of date for a long while.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by weirdnut on Fri 18th Jan 2008 11:16 in reply to "RE: ..."
weirdnut Member since:
2006-01-19

The only advantage of Autopackage is for people who don't have access to the Internet. They can go to a cybercafe, grab themselves a few packages on a USB flash key, and when they arrive at home, they can copy the packages and install them without the need for a connection to the Internet. This would be a lot more painful with RPMs for instance.

Otherwise, installing a package is simple already, just launch your favorite package manager, type the name of your application, click "Install", wait 5 minutes and you're done.


I love these replies. They are such a dead end. It's simply not possible to put all applications out there in the repository of your favorite package manager. Sometimes because the software is commercial and sometimes just because there's no packager for it.

Most of the time you end up with either the source code with ridiculous build and/or issue solving times, or a flaky package with a custom solution.

Kind of ironic. People praise OSS not only for freedom, but als for standards. Well, having the need to install your required software from three different package managers, a custom installer solution and from source, surely ain't no standard at all.

Five minutes? Simple? Quick? Pah, if you're lucky and use your average OSS software only: yes. When you've got different needs than tweaking settings, watching windows burn (yes, pun intended), programming or browsing the web, you're usually f--ked.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: ...
by WereCatf on Fri 18th Jan 2008 14:38 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Most of the time you end up with either the source code with ridiculous build and/or issue solving times, or a flaky package with a custom solution.

I do compile stuff from sources every now and then and it is usually just "./configure --prefix=/usr;make;make install"..Not really that hard ;) On a binary distro you have to install gcc and the corresponding -dev packages but even that doesn't really take long.

Kind of ironic. People praise OSS not only for freedom, but als for standards. Well, having the need to install your required software from three different package managers, a custom installer solution and from source, surely ain't no standard at all.

The only universal method of distributing an app is sources.. I do admit it's a bit awkward, especially for the less experienced, but it can't be helped. Distros differ too much from one another. And there will never be only one distro left which everyone would use.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: ...
by Temcat on Fri 18th Jan 2008 17:14 in reply to "RE: ..."
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

Otherwise, installing a package is simple already, just launch your favorite package manager, type the name of your application, click "Install", wait 5 minutes and you're done.

That is, provided you have the app (or the version of it that you need) in the repository.

Also, packaging for multiple distribution means work duplication, and probability of introducing packaging-related bugs is higher.

Moreover, with a single binary package, you have more chances to get a specific bug fixed upstream rather than going through the distro bugzilla route.

Reply Parent Score: 3