Slashdot Mirror
How to Make Easy-to-Package Linux Software
jmmv writes "The packages in any Linux distribution (or other operating systems) are a master piece to let the user install any program he wishes as painlessly as possible. However, the creation of these packages is not always free of problems. Usually, the packager finds that the program he wants to package suffers from a series of pitfalls - either conceptual or related to portability - that make the packaging task harder than usual. This is why I decided to write an article (published at ONLamp.com) summarizing these problems and proposing several solutions to each of them, aiming to make the life of the packager simpler. I hope it to be of interest to free software developers and also hope that they understand some of the issues and try to fix them in their creations."
"Avoid modifying published distfiles."
Oh heck yes. The number of times I've been bitten by a few projects (yes mplayer guys, I mean you) doing this and breaking Gentoo's digest system...
who mentioned about forcing people to do anything? Most projects supply their files in several different formats so that people can make a choice as to what kind of install they want to do. I dont really care what you think, because if you are truly honest with yourself, you will admit that installing software on linux is a pain in the arse sometimes - even for seasoned users. Giving joe sixpack a foolproof click-through self-installer for linux is not just a good idea its a requirement. Especially as it continues to make headroads on the desktop.
I use Gentoo and Vidalinux by the way. The portage system is pretty good and dependancy issues are pretty much a thing of the past although annoyingly i still have problems. Im lucky enough to have a fairly beefy SMP computer so most of the time i dont have to wait too long for compiles.
Having said all that Autopackage is the best thing ive seen as an installation method yet. Have you actually tried to use it yet ?
Make sure you read the instructions first. You dont even need to go anywhere near a shell prompt!
4 steps to installing an autopackage...
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Oh, brilliant idea. Have a distro system that has been silently hacked and trojaned in the past complete and uninhibited root access on your box WITH unaudited shell scripts.
Woo! Apt!
Oh, you where talking ab... Oh...
Huh...
Here's the problem... The open-source/free-software movement is similar to an organic evolution/adaptation system, while the proprietary software industry is just that, like industrial/factory systems. Because of the factory like mechanics, proprietary software is easy to package and pump out. Open source goes in all different directions and it's an electronic survival of the fittest. If someone comes out with a better piece of software, people will tend to use it instead. If someone comes out with a better distro or packaging system, it's the same thing. Only thing is... since it all goes in a million different directions, there are alot of "extinct species" along the way. This is our trade-off for the freedom vs. convenience. However, if we can find a way to get the best of both worlds (LSB, FreeDesktop.org, Autopackage, and other open standards)....things could really get exciting.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Depends what you mean by "you". It may not bother the end user, but it will bother everyone else who needs to do other things than just run your install script.
I've got a 64bit PPC NetBSD self-installing package here that. Can you use it?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Take a look around. You either get a good method for a few outdated packages, or you get a great system that takes forever to compile packages. Obviously, I haven't dealt much with debian based distros and their magical apt-get, but the major distros like Suse, mandrake, and fedora are still RPM based. I think RPMs have really slowed down linux adoption due to dependency hell. I hope systems like autopackage can help things out.
Statically linked. Great. So now, when someone finds a security bug in the library, you not only have to update the library, you have to figure out all the programs that use that library statically and update them as well.
/much/ easier for end users.
Wonderful idea! I'm sure that'll make everything
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Statically linked. Great. So now, when someone finds a security bug in the library, you not only have to update the library, you have to figure out all the programs that use that library statically and update them as well.
Dynamically linked. Great. So now, when a new release of a library introduces a security bug, you automatically compromise all the programs that use that library.
Hey, it cuts both ways.