Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 102

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    251

    Default

    as a developer, I love that decision. (100% compatibility/stability no interefering with new, untested libs coming in via the system's repository)

    as a user, I hate that decision on every level. It means that I've to rely on the vendor to deliver security patches, I've the same lib 100times on my system which takes up space (and no, cheap space is no excuse to that. Bad habits stay bad habits). I'm not happy about it.

    Similiar to my feelings about the GPL. As a software developer that needs money to pay my rent, pay for my lunch and so on, I hate the GPL. It's retarded in being infectious. Sure, you can sell your software but only one person will purchase it and can then rename it, put it on a website, and sell it for 1/4 of the price.

    As a user, I love the GPL because it gives me the ability to do anything with it.

    Is it normal to be so split about such things?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    My application could not work on either, and thus not be added to thier repo's post-release. Thus with the new package installer, I could provide the verisons of my dependencies in the installer and have my application work on both versions.
    This could also be done with deb.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kingston, Jamaica
    Posts
    282

    Default

    Oh noes! It's the rabid wolves out to get Ubuntu again. If the many existing solutions were perfect or just needed a bit of work to be acceptable then why hasn't anyone done it yet? Why fault Ubuntu for trying to solve an obvious problem?

    I've learned that Ubuntu is damned if they do and damned if they don't so they might as well ignore you bunch and try to accomplish their goals.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    108

    Default

    ...they already have proof of concept code working with the current system written in Python and acceptable performance...
    Is that the same 'acceptable performance' as that of the Software Centre?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    While i understand canonicals frustration with the current situation (yes its a long standing problem for linux) i think this is a problem that should be discussed with all the major distros. FFS we don't need yet another standard.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dh04000 View Post
    I have no idea why people are getting thier panties in a bundle. This will apply to a very small subset of package on the ubuntu desktop and the phone/tablet. The post-release/after package freeze apps.

    Use case with imaginary examples:

    Say I'm developing an applications that uses dependency A and B. I use dependency A version 6 and dependency B version 3. Let's say I'm trageting my application to Ubuntu 12.04 and Ubuntu 13.04 post release. But these releases of Ubuntu have thier own version of dependencies.

    Ubuntu 12.04: A6 and B2
    Ubuntu 13.04: A7 and B3

    My application could not work on either, and thus not be added to thier repo's post-release. Thus with the new package installer, I could provide the verisons of my dependencies in the installer and have my application work on both versions.


    Dev wins, users wins. Stop whining.
    There is only one version - latest stable version. Stop using your laziness as an excuse to generate tons of problems!

    There is only one way out of this - to provide well-thought stable interfaces,
    and when stuff gets updated to shift them into legacy bindings, till they irreversibly break.

    But that would mean that library developers will have new hurd of work to do - for every new version to test how legacy bindings perform with them.
    And even this does not guarantee long run, because architectural changes are inenvitable, and those break everything.

    So, how about stop being lazy and actually getting responsibility to maintain your software or to opensource it so that others can maintain it.

    One law I learned from Linux: Application unmaintained = Application is dead.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Detructor View Post
    as a developer, I love that decision. (100% compatibility/stability no interefering with new, untested libs coming in via the system's repository)

    as a user, I hate that decision on every level. It means that I've to rely on the vendor to deliver security patches, I've the same lib 100times on my system which takes up space (and no, cheap space is no excuse to that. Bad habits stay bad habits). I'm not happy about it.

    Similiar to my feelings about the GPL. As a software developer that needs money to pay my rent, pay for my lunch and so on, I hate the GPL. It's retarded in being infectious. Sure, you can sell your software but only one person will purchase it and can then rename it, put it on a website, and sell it for 1/4 of the price.

    As a user, I love the GPL because it gives me the ability to do anything with it.

    Is it normal to be so split about such things?
    GPL is not about selling copies of software. GPL is about selling your SKILLS.
    You can as well set liberation money on your software, ie "reverse"-kickstarter. Blender was born this way.

    If you apply classic proprietary "sell copies" monetarization approach to GPL, don't worry to become a butthurt. Its like trying to catch water with a colander
    Last edited by brosis; 05-08-2013 at 03:03 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kUrb1a View Post
    This might be one of the best canonical decisions so far (aside from upstart and bazaar maybe) .
    I might agree on that... just because the list of "best canonical decisions so far" is really quite limited. The three are utterly useless, but at least they are not exceptionally bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by kUrb1a View Post
    Hell maybe guys at the KDE Plasma Active could benefit from this.
    Hardly. They don't care about package formats. One version (Kubuntu-based) uses DEB, another version (Mer-based) uses RPM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    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.
    Statically linked? That would be the worst idea. If they are statically linked, they will randomly break, and more so than if they were dynamically linked. Unless you are planning to start a virtual machine for every application, it won't work. A good example is UT2004 - it ships dynamically linked, but also includes the original .so files. If it was statically linked, then today it would be impossible to get sound working in UT2004. Because things randomly broke, but not in the library that they would have linked to statically, but rather in the core OS. The OpenAL version that UT2004 ships with is an antiquated Loki version, which simply doesn't work with current drivers. Replacing the .so with OpenAL Soft makes the sound work again, since it's actually maintained and updated to match the core system.

    So if it's all dynamically linked, and they ship their .so files, then it's an OK idea, even if redundant in terms of disk and RAM usage. But by far not if it's statically linked.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    A good example is UT2004 - it ships dynamically linked, but also includes the original .so files. If it was statically linked, then today it would be impossible to get sound working in UT2004.
    Haha, so you confirm my suspicions - its all about wasting time trying to fix broken proprietary mindset.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    146

    Default

    More copies of the same lib is not really a problem, you can easilly use a deduplication software in userspace (via symlinks) activated by every installation/disinstallation, or even the emerging kernel ones.

    The real issue is that this is all about proprietary software, do you understand this?
    In an ideal GPL world recompile a package isn't really a problem, doesn't the distros born because of this?
    Have someone who takes care of the dependancies and sort the problems for you?
    If even a rolling distro works good, i can't see a problem here, if not to please closed source software.
    In my experience, arch works good 99% of the time, the other 1% is because of conflicts with binary blobs.

    Selfcontaining packages are just a bunch of data files, executables and libraries with a script that set appropriate LD paths.
    EVERY developer can put whatever he wants in that package by reaching all the deps until glibc (game developers usually put just sdl and no much else), so i really CANT see the need of this canonical move; i think they just want to chain developers to their system, instead.

    What if in the future the ubuntu base system the devs are linking to will contain a blob? think about that, it is dangerous.


    Said that, ubuntu is taking a direction, and i will NOT follow their way of development.
    Last edited by kokoko3k; 05-08-2013 at 03:25 PM.

Posting Permissions

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