Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu To Get Its Own Package Format, App Installer

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

  • 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
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          If i can install my Apps, without root privileges, in my own directory i'm happy.

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              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?

              Comment


              • #8
                Static linking?

                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #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

                              Working...
                              X