Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu To Get Its Own Package Format, App Installer

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    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.

    Comment


    • #12
      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.

      Comment


      • #13
        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.

        Comment


        • #14
          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

          Comment


          • #15
            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.

            Comment


            • #16
              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, 01:51 PM.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Nille View Post
                Because an Program ship his own dependency doest mean its static linked.
                Sure. I never stated that.

                Comment


                • #18
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      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?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X