Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 102

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oleid View Post
    You already can. Simply use autopackage, zeroinstall or maybe klik.
    And the usage of this solutions is near zero.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oleid View Post
    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.
    True, so most likely the Ubuntu base will be dynamically linked to the app, so that they stay current with Mir, indicators, etc, but any support lib they need like audio, python(?), maybe even Qt / Gtk, will be static linked so that they dont randomly break.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    308

    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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    196

    Default

    Maybe this will help moving the responsibility from a small group of people packaging software to the repository to the developers them self. The current packaging system is kind of complicated, it has many benefits but you need a lot of time to figure out how to correctly package your software. Also each time a library is updated a recompile is needed and old deb packages dont work anymore.

    Look at windows, old executables of the win 95 still work on win 7/8, we don't have that flexibility on the linux world unless you recompile the whole world again. Even mac bundles are flexible enough.

    It is true that applications will end larger in size since all of them will ship with it's own libraries but at least the developer has some more flexibility.

    Anyway this decision has its pros and cons

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    [...] but any support lib they need like audio, python(?), maybe even Qt / Gtk, will be static linked so that they dont randomly break.
    At least GTK+ can't/shouldn't be linked statically.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oleid View Post
    At least GTK+ can't/shouldn't be linked statically.
    Because a Program ship his own dependency doest mean its static linked.
    Last edited by Nille; 05-08-2013 at 02:51 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nille View Post
    Because an Program ship his own dependency doest mean its static linked.
    Sure. I never stated that.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOne View Post

    Look at windows, old executables of the win 95 still work on win 7/8,...
    Exe's are dangerous how many people owned a win 95-7/8 machine that was infected or compromised by downloading a exe of the web?

    I don't exactly care the format of the packages so much as long as the switch doesn't burn the distribution of Linux packages system we already have in place (as to a more download and open me package format).

    user space packages are a good idea for certain things that's for sure, especially the more that outside sources are supplying .debs and the likes.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    391

    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. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightmarex View Post
    Exe's are dangerous how many people owned a win 95-7/8 machine that was infected or compromised by downloading a exe of the web?
    What makes ELF executables more safe?

Posting Permissions

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