Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Jun 2008 16:51 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Installing software on Linux. In the world of online minefields, this is the big one. Back in the day, you installed software on Linux by compiling it manually. Time-consuming, but assuming you had a decent knowledge of gcc, make, and maintaining library files, this could actually work. Later one came the package management systems that were supposed to make installing software on Linux a breeze: rpm, dpkg, and so on, and so forth. Since human beings have the innate tendency to assume that everyone else is wrong and only they are right, we are now stuck with 3453495 different Linux package managers. Denis Washington, a Fedora developer, is taking steps to resolve this issue.
Thread beginning with comment 319598
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: There's already a better solution...
by TemporalBeing on Mon 23rd Jun 2008 19:56
in reply to "RE[3]: There's already a better solution..."
Member since:2007-08-22
2: self-contained directory containing everything.
[snip]
with type 2, if the provider is a moron and makes crappily closed crapware, the distribution can still just repackage if they please, or if the user has a distribution which doesent prefer to package this application, just download the damned tarball, extract it, and RUN the software.. no crappy msi, no weird third party installers doing weird weird stuff, just run..
how hard can it f--king be? its not hard at all, its just bozos not understanding that there IS NO ISSUE
[snip]
with type 2, if the provider is a moron and makes crappily closed crapware, the distribution can still just repackage if they please, or if the user has a distribution which doesent prefer to package this application, just download the damned tarball, extract it, and RUN the software.. no crappy msi, no weird third party installers doing weird weird stuff, just run..
how hard can it f--king be? its not hard at all, its just bozos not understanding that there IS NO ISSUE
Actually, that only works for a small sub-set of programs. Consider the impact of shared libraries? If the program is not setup to pickup libraries out of wherever the distribution wants to have them (and there are programs out there like that - like it or not) then your whole solution breaks down for commercial applications - the biggest violator of such.
A lot of company's do not want others using the libraries. They write the libraries for their own use. They don't provide headers to those libraries. Those libraries do not belong in the /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib directories as a result. They belong with the application; yet a distributor designs things to be put in common areas (/usr) - they don't want things in other places (e.g /usr/local/someapp/).
Get over it already.
You may think it's broken; but it's a fact that has to be dealt with for commercial applications. Whether its an Adobe application or some random piece of shareware. That's the reality, and not one distributions are going to fix either.
As another example - distributions break things too. For example, Aaron Seigo's recent blog (http://tinyurl.com/54upvd) about distributions packaging software in a way that does not help developers. If the developer's controlled it, it would be packaged as needed. (As stated before, F/OSS developer's typically don't want to package anything.)
Honestly, there are two different communities being talked about here: F/OSS and Commercial. And they both have different requirements and expectations on how to package software. If we (the F/OSS community) want commercial applications, then we have to provide some way for them to be able to package software their way too, and your "solution" does not address it that way - its a 'my way or the highway' approach, which is not going to win over commercial software vendors.
Like or not that's the reality.
RE[5]: There's already a better solution...
by Redeeman on Mon 23rd Jun 2008 20:25
in reply to "RE[4]: There's already a better solution..."
Member since:2006-03-23
RE[4]: There's already a better solution...
by google_ninja on Mon 23rd Jun 2008 20:17
in reply to "RE[3]: There's already a better solution..."
Member since:2006-02-05
How is MSI stupid? On the windows platform you can script any installer for any package, and deploy it across any number of machines, customized according to group policy.
1: source
2: self-contained directory containing everything.
this is really easy, with type number 1, the user and/or distribution can simply install/package however the f*** they please. with type 2, if the provider is a moron and makes crappily closed crapware, the distribution can still just repackage if they please, or if the user has a distribution which doesent prefer to package this application, just download the damned tarball, extract it, and RUN the software.. no crappy msi, no weird third party installers doing weird weird stuff, just run..
2: self-contained directory containing everything.
this is really easy, with type number 1, the user and/or distribution can simply install/package however the f*** they please. with type 2, if the provider is a moron and makes crappily closed crapware, the distribution can still just repackage if they please, or if the user has a distribution which doesent prefer to package this application, just download the damned tarball, extract it, and RUN the software.. no crappy msi, no weird third party installers doing weird weird stuff, just run..
Deploying to a home desktop and across a big network and wildly different things, and aren't really comparable.
To create more advanced package management tools, you need a standard format to work against. The lack of a standard format means the inability to build robust tools for large scale deployments.
There are distro specific tools that are up to the task, but that means you are stuck with the package selection the distro provides you (or take on the burden of packaging yourself). It would be a far better solution if the project itself could take care of packaging (since they know more then anyone else what is supposed to be going on), and have that seamlessly integrate into whatever package manager a distro happens to be using.
Edited 2008-06-23 20:20 UTC
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-03-23
the winblows installer way, is _STUPID_. Developers of applications must be only responsible for _THEIR_ little piece of software, they shouldnt have any say whatsoever on how its installed..
Solution:
provide 2 types of packages(hell, only 1 if they are morons).
1: source
2: self-contained directory containing everything.
this is really easy, with type number 1, the user and/or distribution can simply install/package however the f*** they please.
with type 2, if the provider is a moron and makes crappily closed crapware, the distribution can still just repackage if they please, or if the user has a distribution which doesent prefer to package this application, just download the damned tarball, extract it, and RUN the software.. no crappy msi, no weird third party installers doing weird weird stuff, just run..
how hard can it f--king be? its not hard at all, its just bozos not understanding that there IS NO ISSUE