Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 102

Thread: Ubuntu To Get Its Own Package Format, App Installer

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,645

    Default Ubuntu To Get Its Own Package Format, App Installer

    Phoronix: Ubuntu To Get Its Own Package Format, App Installer

    While Ubuntu already has its own software store, Canonical developers are now working on their own application package installer and package format...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM2Nzg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    308

    Angry Horrible

    Who didn't expect this? Most Ubuntu-.deb-packages aren't compatible with other Debian-distributions anyway, so it was just a matter of time for them to do their own bullshit.
    It might be only one more symptom of the NIH-syndrome, but I consider this even a dangerous tactic which most Debian-developers already warned us about.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    311

    Question Fake-ticker: Ubuntu To Get Its Own Kernel

    In Watson's mailing list post he did bring up "why not use an existing kernel out there?" to implement your new system, considering the vast amount of code to be written... The answer is that they still might but that it wouldn't make much difference. The longer explanation appears to be they want the kernel catered to their platform more than anything else with each other kernel being rather designed for more than one distribution.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frign View Post
    Who didn't expect this? Most Ubuntu-.deb-packages aren't compatible with other Debian-distributions anyway, so it was just a matter of time for them to do their own bullshit.
    It might be only one more symptom of the NIH-syndrome, but I consider this even a dangerous tactic which most Debian-developers already warned us about.
    Well the upside is... everything is self-contained. They're using static libs, not shared libs, so to take this package and use it on debian or arch or fedora should (in theory) mean just copying the folder to the other distro, and running it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    659

    Default

    If i can install my Apps, without root privileges, in my own directory i'm happy.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    83

    Default

    So far from what I read on the mailing list and other wiki pages they listed and other people contributed seems rational and they still didn't decide on what they exactly want from that package format.This might be one of the best canonical decisions so far (aside from upstart and bazaar maybe) . this idea certainly is not new one but definitely needed one if they want to everything to go according to plan on mobile front. Hell maybe guys at the KDE Plasma Active could benefit from this.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nille View Post
    If i can install my Apps, without root privileges, in my own directory i'm happy.
    You already can. Simply use autopackage, zeroinstall or maybe klik.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg
    They're using static libs, not shared libs, so to take this package and use it on debian or arch or fedora should (in theory) mean just copying the folder to the other distro, and running it.
    Really? Even for the base libs provided by the system?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    308

    Question Static linking?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Well the upside is... everything is self-contained. They're using static libs, not shared libs, so to take this package and use it on debian or arch or fedora should (in theory) mean just copying the folder to the other distro, and running it.
    Static libs? I thought they were supposed to be dynamically linked.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frign View Post
    Static libs? I thought they were supposed to be dynamically linked.
    The description says no inter-app dependencies with everything the app needs contained to the folder, that would imply every app will be statically linked to all the libraries it needs, and will ship with them in their folder.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    The description says no inter-app dependencies with everything the app needs contained to the folder, that would imply every app will be statically linked to all the libraries it needs, and will ship with them in their folder.
    Right. Yet, this does not include the dynamic libraries provided by the Ubuntu base system and Ubuntu-only libs such as bindings to their new display server Mir, libindicator and such. If you restrict this dynamic linking to LSB-only libs, everything is fine and you can share those apps with other LSB systems. I bet, however, that the base system won't be LSB-only.

Posting Permissions

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