Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Introducing AppStream, Multi-Distro App Framework

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,809

    Default Introducing AppStream, Multi-Distro App Framework

    Phoronix: Introducing AppStream, Multi-Distro App Framework

    Recently in Germany there was a cross-distribution meeting among the major vendors (Red Hat, Canonical, Novell, Debian, Mandriva, etc) to discuss a common application installer for Linux and one unified application store / market-place. The goal would be to have a common user-interface for application installation, how/what meta-data to use, determine a defined protocol for non-static meta-data, and decide what meta-data to share across distributions. Fortunately, this was a very successful meeting...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTA1MA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Yfrwlf will be somewhat glad to see this, I guess.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Wow this looks like it could be really good

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    The AppStream interface will just be a front-end to PackageKit so that each distribution can then continue rely upon their existing package management systems, but the complexities are hidden from the user.
    Ughh mare packagekit crap to screw up.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    241

    Default

    Wait, so in Fedora it will be: AppStream -> PackageKit -> yum -> rpm?

    Look I understand the need for standardization, but this design is a highway to fail.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    103

    Default

    And Gentoo!!!

    Personally, I think a self contained installer script that dumps files into /opt is the way to go.. Cross platform and independent of the distro's package manager.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    67

    Default

    "Looks like it could be good" but I'll wait and see how it really turns out.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    172

    Default

    If they can pull this off it will be awesome, this could make it easier for developers that make software for Linux to target it. IMHO installing applications that are not in the distros repositories I think is the last really difficult thing for Desktop Linux users, especially if they have to compile it.

    However it seems they did not yet address the lower level stuff, of what the packages are going to look like, how dependencies are handled, libraries are managed with ld.so, and stuff like that, or how updates for these will be handled.

    It seems very early in the planning stage, so I bet this probably will probably come up, and be discussed soon...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r1348 View Post
    Wait, so in Fedora it will be: AppStream -> PackageKit -> yum -> rpm?

    Look I understand the need for standardization, but this design is a highway to fail.
    Don't be silly. ALL software is abstraction. 50% of programming is transforming data from one representation to another simpler representation, and the other 50% is abstracting details away behind higher level interfaces.


    The real sad part is that all this is doing is giving everyone a pretty UI for browsing the per-version-per-distro packages. As a third-party distributor, you're still stuck packaging your app 50 times or waiting for a packager to adopt your software for a particular distribution. As a user, you're still stuck with out of date or just flat out missing packages for many applications and simply no packages for any non-FOSS software you happen to want (even though RMS says that makes you a kitten rapist).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Will this solve the problem that people have creating installers for all the different distros, for instance Blizzard has cited that fragmentation makes it too costly to port their games to Linux? If it doesn't solve those problems, then was anything truly great really accomplished, except to reduce needed development hours spent on it so it can be spent elsewhere? If it does then that would be truly spectacular.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •