“The current state of play is that the package manager RiscPkg exists with a very basic set of features. There are a handful of packages with which the system can be tested, but initially these are just the package manager and its supporting libraries.” Read the article at Drobe.co.uk.
The Case for a RISC OS Package Manager
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Amazing. RISC OS decides to copy Debian’s APT system — a system designed to work around Unix’s historical lack of support for application bundles.
Why not use Zero Install (http://zero-install.sf.net)? It’s *designed* for application directories, simpler, more secure, faster, and easier to use. And it works though the filesystem, something RISC OS has always used traditionally.
Why have an installer at all? On Syllable we’ve successfully eliminated any sort of Installer for native applications. We only have a very simple package manager which is required for old & crufty *nix applications which expect all sorts of things in certain places.
Much nicer when you don’t have to strugle with package managers & installer.
That’s cool, I didn’t know about that. I’ll have to check out Syllable again sometime.
Damn package managers!
Strange thing… RISC OS never need any package manager. In fact there is no real dependancies under RISC OS (there is even no shared libraries, just system modules).
So why such a tool ? Anyway, Zeo-install could be usefull.
Amazing, someone types a blanket statement on OSNews. No, the RISC OS package manager is not a copy of Debian’s – you’d know that if you read the article, even though many of the low level technical details are the same.
Vanders: It’s not an “installer”. It’s a package manager. I don’t know anything about Syllable, but I’m certain it’s nothing like RISC OS, so you should be careful before drawing conclusions.
David: RISC OS doesn’t “need” a package manager, nor does Debian “need” one. But it will make many things much much easier. RISC OS _does_ have dependencies to a degree, and this will increase, especially when shared libraries become widely used.
The bottom line is that RISC OS is badly in need of a package manager for lots of reasons, even if many advanced RISC OS users think they have no use for it.
Yes, upgrading now on RISC OS is generally quite easy – if you can find the latest version. A package manager will help mitigate this common problem on RISC OS – of ensuring you have the latest version of something, since there is no common repository of apps.
There’s no requirement to use the package manager for anything and certainly not for everything, but I’m certain that most users will find it useful for at least something once the system is up and running.
It’s not an “installer”. It’s a package manager. I don’t know anything about Syllable, but I’m certain it’s nothing like RISC OS, so you should be careful before drawing conclusions.
Please could you define the difference? Certainly in the article it states very clearly “A package manager can automate the process of installing shared files, saving effort and reducing the risk of error.” RiscPkg performs dependency resolution and file copying, and stores information about installed software in a database someplace.
To me that is the same thing although clearly my interpretation may differ somewhat from yours. I’ll also admit that I know nothing about RiscOS so I do not know how well package management works. I was simply trying to point out that in many cases package management simply makes the problem of managing dependencies and shared files worse. There are other ways to solve many of these problems.
Still, no doubt RiscPkg does not reach the heady heights of sucktitude that is the Microsoft Scriptable Installer..
Please, it’s “RISC OS”. I respectfully ask people once again to use the correct term.
Vanders: There’s no doubt that what is typically in an “installer” is a subset of a package manager’s functionality. But usually an installer is specific to a given program (e.g. windows apps), or classes of file (fonts, system resources).
A package manager I suggest would generally have much greater remit, such as being able to manage files on all (most) of the system including downloading. Whether your this is your interpretation is up to you to decide.
I don’t want to get into a general discussion about package management on other OSes, so I’ll simply that yes, it can make things worse, but in the case of RISC OS, we have a lot of experience to build on, and I think you’d have to genuninely try very hard to introduce genuine new problems.
Ah yes RISC OS… I still have problems with the name (after 9 years). Sorry.
To be more precise, a package manager that would manage the systems files and the software updates would be great.
The problem would be to use an installer for applications where the system never need one. To be clear I’m more against an installer than a package manager. Of course if you call it a “software upgrader” I will understand
Pfiuuuu, I’m really tired.