The Future of Packaging Software in Linux

michuk writes "There are currently at least five popular ways of installing software in GNU/Linux. None of them are widely accepted throughout the popular distributions. This situation is not a problem for experienced users — they can make decisions for themselves. However, for a newcomer in the GNU/Linux world, installing new software is always pretty confusing. The article tries to sum up some of the recent efforts to fix this problem and examine the possible future of packaging software in GNU/Linux."

Comments

Applications Packages

[SultanCemil]

If only major linux distros would use Application Packages like OS X, the world would be a better place.

Seriously, drag-n-drop installation rocks.

Re:Applications Packages

[be-fan]

There are substantial deficiencies with OS X-style packages, which would only be amplified in the Linux world. In general, OS X packages have to bundle libraries that are not included by default in the OS. This leads to anywhere from a little to a lot of wasted disk space and memory. The problem is limited in OS X, because there is a standard set of frameworks Apple ships with, but this is not true on Linux. As a result, app bundles would have to include things like GNOME as well.

How about we take the easy way out?

[khasim]

And that is ... define the requirements that the next generation package manager should have.

That way there is no need to worry about "replacing" the existing systems. You can instead focus on evolving them to meet the requirements. Even if each distribution/project takes its own path to get there.

#1. It must make installing new software as easy as it currently is with apt.

#2. The same for upgrading the software.

#3. The same for removing the software.

#4. The same for handling dependencies. Including the order in which dependencies must be installed.

#5. The same for validating the installed software against the original software (checksums or whatever).

#6. The same for re-installing the software over the existing installation when you accidentally delete or over-write something.

#7. The ability to point the updater at your own repository or multiple repositories.

#8. The ability to recompile (automatically) any software that you install for your specific hardware.

Anything else? Yeah, I know most of this is already handled with apt. But that's what I'm most familiar with. I keep seeing all the articles about "problems" but I don't seem to run into any problems on my server or workstations (and I'm running Feisty Fawn on my workstation).

The hard part...

[PornMaster]

The hard part, as I see it, is dependency management for upgrading software.

Eventually, with RPMs, for example, I end up getting to the point that I have to force something, which shouldn't ever really have to happen... but it does.

Re:The solution!

[Anonymous Coward]

A great idea??? Are you serious?

Choice is good - until the point where it becomes totally overwhelming. On linux there are dozens of distros to chose from (different versions of the said distros too - running on different versions of the kernel), different window managers to chose from, different installers (apt get or whatever, applies to both the command line and the graphical installers), different package formats, different shells, too many different text editors (vi/emacs/...) and such.

Most users appreciate SOME choice. Like when you go to the dealership, you pick the car model, the engine, color and such. The linux way, you'd be forced to hand pick things like the actual metal alloy used for the pistons' segments and such intricate things most people couldn't care less about. Yes, you could have a totally custom car, but it would take 6 months to pick all the parts by hand, and comparing the cars to another would be so complicated and overwhelming...

Too many confusing choices to make, often over stuff one doesn't really understand. And when searching for information about them (to make the choice), often all one finds is heated debates (like kde/gnome or emacs/vi) without much real information.

When I use my PC at home, at work, on the road, at friends or relatives' places, it's always the same interface (plain old WinXP), same way to do things, stuff located in the same places, most apps are the same, etc. Predictable, consistent and simple. Most people truly appreciate that.

If we were all running linux, I'd be using say, KDE or gnome, work might be using fluxbox, a friend would use something like xfce... All on different distros that work differently and have different apps installed by default (likely not the ones you're used to). I'd be lost.

Re:The solution!

[nmb3000]

The real bastard is that each distro has subtle differences in how the packages and the dependencies are organized. The only way that I can see to fix that is to design a universal package tree, and convince all the major distros to conform to it. Which is not impossible, but it aint easy, either. And it might cause other problems.

Which is why, as it currently stands, this year will not be Year Of The Linux Desktop. Consumers won't just accept that they can't install software X because it's an RPM and alien doesn't work (this is of course after looking online for half an hour to figure out that alien is the tool to use). Manually compiling from source is simply not an option for standard users. Sure it's a dandy idea, and if you get a "fullproof" GUI that handles the compilation and installation then maybe, but I can't count the number of times make/make install has failed for some obscure reason. The first time grandma needs to go download dependencies means Linux has failed on the consumer desktop.

This is one place that Microsoft and Apple have it right. By having a standardized method of installing and storing program information they make getting new software many times easier than on Linux (excluding the "normal" packages. I'm thinking more along the lines of tools and apps you download from the web). This is also one reason people are willing to pay for an operating system that has a standardized and dependable way of doing things.

Microsoft even released the WiX toolkit that allows anyone to create MSI installer packages. MSIs are one of the best ideas for Windows in a while: No more dealing with poorly-written homebrew installers or 10-year old, 16-bit InstallShield programs. Instead you have a fully scriptable installer that's transaction-based and has near 100% support coverage.

I like apt, but downloading a gzipped file of source or a deb that complains about dependencies still can't compare to an MSI package. Even if a solution was developed that worked as well as or better than MSI, as you say, it would take significant effort (and maybe not even then) to get it supported by all the major distributions. Some people seem to think that the fact that Debian does things differently from Mandriva that does it different than Fedora is what makes the distribution "special". Be that as it may, I think it's only hurting Linux users as a whole.