Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 102

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

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,400

    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
    303

    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
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,739

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    303

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,739

    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    240

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    303

    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.
    Nope, it would imply dynamic linking, which is the case here. Static linking is sadly not common.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,712

    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.
    beep. Wrong. That only means that they put all the libs needed into it. Nothing about the linking.

    Welcome to dll hell. It sucks on windows, so Canonical has to copy it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    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.
    Downside is 1000 copies of same library.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Downside is 1000 copies of same library.
    And in 1990 i'd agree...but this is 2013, storage is cheap. I can (and did) go out and get a 1TB external USB3.0 HDD for $75, so who cares? They're all being kept in their own app's folder so its not even like theyre all flooding /usr/lib

Posting Permissions

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