Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calamares 1.0 Distribution-Independent Installer Framework Released

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

  • Calamares 1.0 Distribution-Independent Installer Framework Released

    Phoronix: Calamares 1.0 Distribution-Independent Installer Framework Released

    Version 1.0 of the Calamares Distribution Independent, Installer Framework has been released...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-1.0-Installer

  • #2
    So how does this differ from something like Nix?

    Edit: my bad, this is NOT a package installer. And there I was hoping for a universal package installer. Guess we'll see something perhaps before 2020.
    Last edited by Zoll; 02-01-2015, 01:11 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Zoll View Post
      So how does this differ from something like Nix?

      Edit: my bad, this is NOT a package installer. And there I was hoping for a universal package installer. Guess we'll see something perhaps before 2020.
      Universal Package Installer requires a shift from the current distribution model to a BSD style model. In short... It's not happening. There's too many differences between different distributions and you're not going to get them to all agree on a single package manager or even format. As much as that's even possibly a thing right now it's called RPMs as specified by the LSB.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm impressed by Calamares. It is clean, fast, easy to use and it just works.

        Perhaps the same team could make an unified package format next?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
          I'm impressed by Calamares. It is clean, fast, easy to use and it just works.

          Perhaps the same team could make an unified package format next?
          Not going to happen.

          Even if a universal package format (say, .uvp, for example) was created, how are you going to get the different distributions to agree on a standard file directory hierarchy?

          First, we have the Debian-style (and possibly used by Slackware, Gentoo as well)
          Code:
          /lib
          /lib32
          /usr/lib
          /usr/lib32
          which gets eve more complicated with multilib:
          Code:
          /usr/lib/i386
          /usr/lib/x64
          /usr/lib/<arch type>
          And then we have the directory style used by all RPM-based distributions:
          Code:
          /lib
          /lib64
          /usr/lib
          /usr/lib64
          which, again, introduces yet another problem because not all RPM-based distributions have adopted the /usr merge, which moves /bin/, /lib and /lib64 into /usr


          Until all distributions can agree on a single standard heirarchy for their filesystem, there's no chance in hell a unified packaging format will happen, You'd end up seeing distribution-specific .uvp packages being made just to cater to each distribution's file heirarchy's idiosyncrasies, which totally defeats the purpose of a standard package format.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by varikonniemi View Post
            Perhaps the same team could make an unified package format next?
            As specified by the LSB, they're called RPMs

            The problem is that unless you statically link everything in, which you'll be yelled at for, distros are too different at the core for sharing packages between distribution families.

            Comment


            • #7
              Code:
              Calamares is built with Qt 5, C++11, Boost.Python, (bits of) KDE Frameworks 5 and KDE Partition Manager.
              Sounds kinda overbloated, especially for GTK-based distros.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Post
                Code:
                Calamares is built with Qt 5, C++11, Boost.Python, (bits of) KDE Frameworks 5 and KDE Partition Manager.
                Sounds kinda overbloated, especially for GTK-based distros.
                That kind of distros are dying soon. No problems here

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Post
                  Code:
                  Calamares is built with Qt 5, C++11, Boost.Python, (bits of) KDE Frameworks 5 and KDE Partition Manager.
                  Sounds kinda overbloated, especially for GTK-based distros.
                  It's just an installer framework. Used only during installation and it can install Qt and GTK based desktops equally fine. No need for the outdated KDE vs Gnome purism wars here.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                    As specified by the LSB, they're called RPMs

                    The problem is that unless you statically link everything in, which you'll be yelled at for, distros are too different at the core for sharing packages between distribution families.
                    Well, in ideal world distros would only be a concept for defaults, everything would be in common package repositories, API/ABI guarantees would be globally agreed on. Tight dependencies avoided as possible and solved through shims and such. GNU/Linux as is is not exactly an inviting platform in all of its fragmentation. It's just silly how many people seem to think forking will resolve issues. With good package system and proper alternatives support there shouldn't be a need to fork ever, just provide alternative package and a mechanism exists which user can use to choose between even packages with identical versions

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X