AutoPackaging for Linux

Isak Savo writes "The next generation packaging format for Linux has reached 1.0. With Autopackage officially declared stable, there is now an easy way for developers to create up to date, easy installable packages. There are lots of screenshots available including a flash demo of a package installation."

Comments

Wrong Paradigm

[user9918277462]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Windows model of acquiring and running software from a large number of random third parties is broken. It is fundamentally unsafe and, frankly, archaic in 2005. We do not trade 5.25" floppy disks with BASIC games on them, and we certainly shouldn't be downloading self-extracting installers from sketchy websites anymore, regardless of OS.

The current Linux model of distros integrating and authenticating software from upstream authors helps ensure the security of the userbase as well as providing installation ease of use. This is something we should be proud of rather than trying to imitate the technically inferior competition.

Re:Wrong Paradigm

[karmaflux]

Bittorrent calls you a liar, buddy. We trade 5.25" floppies in a metaphorical sense constantly. When I develop a program that takes random input and outputs Frank & Earnest cartoons, I don't want to have to wait for some Board of Linux Usage Oversight to give my 5k perl script the Stamp of Approval.

Nobody's trying to copy the Windows paradigm with autopackage. What they're trying to do is break down that barrier to cross-distribution software releasing. Your average desktop user does not want to compile software. Dropping to a terminal, cd pathtoapp, tar -jxvf whatever.tar.gz, cd newpath, ./configure; make; make install is too much shit for a user -- and then how to uninstall? Keep the source directory there forever?

"If they can't compile they should run Windows" is a stupid, backwards attitude, and autopackage is trying to fix it. Relying on upstream content providers is dangerous -- what happens when you disagree with your upstream provider? You have to switch distributions? Pat recently dropped Gnome support for Slackware -- I still run gnome. I do it with a third-party package from dropline. Is that broken? No.

The way to fix the problems you describe is to educate users, not to remove their usage priveleges. Teach people not to install untrusted software -- and teach them how to tell what software to trust! Don't just slap their hand and yell NO.

Re:Wrong Paradigm

[labratuk]

If the Windows Paradigm was broken people would not use Windows.

I'll tell you this now, the packaging system is not the factor that people base their decisions to run windows on.

Yes there are some things about Windows that suck but MSI and InstallShield installers are not a example.

When you are installing from installshield, you're basically saying: 'Hello random executable from the internet (even if you are signed by someone), here, overwrite any of my libraries you'd like, with whatever obscure or customised version you want. Oh, and while you're at it, do whatever you want to my registry...'

I guess you would only be happy if we just pulled everything down from SVN/CVS and built from source.

That's a strawman attack. He didn't say anything like that - in fact it's the complete opposite of what he was arguing.

Re:Wrong Paradigm

[ferratus]

I don't think MSI or InstallShields (or any other Windows installer for that matter) are broken, but I do agree with the parent post in that the way to *get* the software on windows is not all that good.

If there's one thing I love about Linux is the way I can download/install a software using a single command (or a GUI tool) in most distros.

Even Gentoo, not exactly regarded as the most user friendly distro, allows one to download & install a software by doing:

emerge XYZ

That's it. Same goes for Mandrake, Debian, Fedora, etc. End-user distros like Linspire even go further by allowing you to browse through all available software, look up the description and then perform a "one-click" install.

I think that's great, and a whole lot better than the windows (and mac os x) alternative where you have to look for software on the web, try to see if they contain malware, download them, run the installer, etc.

One of the advantage of the system is that the upstream provider (i.e. usually your distro) checks the package for validity. The packages you download won't contain virii or spyware (even if those were to exist on Linux) because the provider would likely not allow them...something MS would certainly do if they controlled the software ppl are downloading.

I know some packages are hard to install (Gnome for example) but for the most part, I feel software installation is a lot easier on Linux than on Windows, unless you go the CVS/SVN route and compile everything yourself.

At least on Mac OS X, you usually simply drag and drop the Application in the Applications folder and that's it. While not perfect, it's a whole lot better than Windows.

Re:nextgen already here: emerge

[ArbitraryConstant]

Developers want to be able to release packages that work on all the Linuxes, not just Gentoo. Not everyone wants to make the fast updates/reliability tradeoff necessary to use Gentoo.

For more information on autopackage...

[mp3phish]

I have been following autopackage for a while now.. It looks promising. This release will be the test to see if anybody will take it seriously (I hope so). Autopackage brings some really cool features to the table:

• Frontends to different windowing and desktop systems.
• Able to resolve dependancies even if you installed other software through the source, or with RPM or DEB
• You will be able to download one package and install it on several different distributions.

Essentially, this will be as flexible as tarballs, only they will install easilly, and have clean upgrade paths and uninstall paths. With clean dependancy resolution. It sounds too good to be true, but you can only know it if you try it.

Here is the sourceforge link with some more info and downloading.

Re:Where does everything get autopackaged to?

[Abcd1234]

Umm, that's what the Linux Standard Base is for. Blame the distro makers and packagers for not following it. After all, the LSB has been out for a *long* time...

Please let non-root people install

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing I'd like to see in a package manager is to allow non-root users to install software (perhaps under $HOME ; perhaps under /usr/local if they're members of the group local).

It's absurd that you need to enter a root password to do something as simple as install a user-space program - and it's absurd that package mangers only support dependancy checking for stuff installed in the main system directories.

At work, the main directories (/usr, /bin, etc) can only be accessed by the IT guys; but every department has a directory ("/usr/department/engineering", for example) of that memebers of that group can install software in. We have a newer version of Perl in ours. It really sucks that package managers can't help deal with the dependancies in an environmennt like this.

Re:nextgen already here: emerge

[ArbitraryConstant]

Jesus Gentoo fanbois can be annoying. For some reason, unlike the users of every other distro, some Gentoo users think everyone would be happier with the decision they've made for themselves.

Some people like Gentoo, but some people have serious issues with it. emerge is a decent package manager, but it's attached to a distro that conservative users aren't going to touch. The more conservative distros have package managers that their users are already perfectly happy with, so it's unlikely to be used anywhere else.

Re:nextgen already here: emerge

[ZephyrXero]

That's fine for advanced users who can handle the command line but what about the remaining 97% of the world?

Re:Yes, we need this!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say it, but...

It seems to me that {NeXT,Open,GNU}step-style apps are both good for developers, and great for mortal users. Drag an app (it's just a file) to your Applications folder, double-click it to run, drag it to the trash to delete. They also handle your "edge cases" (multiple installed versions) just fine.

They're actually quite a bit simpler for users because an app is just a file -- a first-class object in the system. You don't need a special program just to "install" and "uninstall" programs. You don't need ugly hacks like the "start menu" (Gnome or KDE's reimplementation of it). Users think an app should be a first-class object, and it's perfectly feasible, so as developers we should make that the case.

The autopackage FAQ has "what's wrong with NeXT/MacOSX style appfolders", but it seems to consist mostly of hand-waving and straw men. They don't seem to understand how NeXT/Mac apps work, e.g., w.r.t. linking.

Re:That's right. apt-get works.

[IamTheRealMike]

Having applications (as opposed to libraries) installed outside of apt doesn't break anything as they aren't dependencies of things.

Re:I don't know about this

[Master of Transhuman]

"To me it seems like anything that makes it easy for users to install random software off the internet to be a REALLY BAD THING."

This is hardly the point of the project.

The point of the project is to eliminate problems for developers in packaging their software to be able to run across distros.

The fact that it makes it easier to relieve dependency hell is a bonus for those users who want packages not included in their distro.

Anybody who says EVERYTHING they'll ever need is included in their distro is just being a troll. Because it simply is not possible that ANY distro is "finished." And a lot of people don't want to wait months until something they want shows up in a repository.

If Windows did that, everybody would still be using DOS.

Finally, the notion that it is somehow "evil" to install software from the Net is just stupid. The Net exists to distribute information - and programs are part of that.

Practically everything I use on the Windows side of my machine was downloaded off some Web site or another - and I have several gigs of stuff on my Linux side to explore yet which also has the same origin.

And I have NEVER had a spyware/virus/trojan problem from such software. (Although I have had software that simply screwed up the machine due to stupid programming.)

Users get spyware and other crap from stupid, pointless little programs offered by commercial entities because the user acts like a kid in a candy store when offered something "free". If the users really knew what freeware was about and where to get anything they need, they would be less likely to do stupid stuff like downloading a calendar program loaded with spyware.

While it is true that CORPORATE users should be restricted from downloading any damn thing they see (unless it has a productivity purpose), home users certainly should not be.

Your solution smacks of the paternalism I hate about Windows. You want your distro to control your machine just as much as Gates wants to control Windows users.

Sorry - not acceptable.