[packaging] Useing distro package managers. Was: Re: Meeting next week to discuss trusted third-party repositories
Tortanick
tortanick at googlemail.com
Tue Dec 23 03:34:25 PST 2008
On Tuesday 23 December 2008 10:55:13 you wrote:
>At times relocatable is key if user has just run /opt out of diskspace.
>Relocatable is just preference from user friendlness. And in the rare case
>we have a double up on a /opt/vendor/package. Please beaware we do risk
>unregulated ones out there. So far I have seen no enforcement model
Your right, relocatable is important, especially for people installing
in /home
As for regulation: a simple system where the package manager asks the user to
chose a new location will probobly be enough.
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Tortanick <tortanick at googlemail.com>wrote:
>
> Correct and partly illegal. Some countries it is illegal to bypass some
> forms of DRM. So forums could not provide that information from
> everywhere.
Possibly, IMNAL so I can't say if publishing a guide including where to find a
crack crosses the line or if you need to publish the crak itself. However I
can say the LSB itself is in the clear, creating the trust network is just
creating an easy way to get short software reviews with a specalised focus to
readers at the point of install, ethically and legally that's pretty clean :)
> > 5) limit dependencies to the LSB. My view on dependencies is simple: by a
> > long
> > way the first priority is installing correctly and since I don't think
> > that most people will have all that many third party packages installed
> > on a single machince shared libaries won't make that much diffrence
> > anyway. If there is a libary that lots of ISVs are useing it can allways
> > be added to
> > teh LSB anyway.
>
> Complete failure. As long as software patents exist there will always be
> libs that LSB will not be able to include because distributions will vote
> them down because they don't have patent licences. There also will be Libs
> in distributions not fully functional for the same reason. Like freetype.
> Section of its code has been disabled for years for patent reason.
>
> If someone has a valid licence to ship applications with parts activated
> LSB should not get in way. If application need to ship with parts with
> different options LSB should not get in way.
The LSB will not get in the way, the LSB will give the ISVs a nice list of
libaries that will be on nearly every distro, if the ISVs want a diffrent
libary, or some changes to a libary they can ship it themselves by bundleing
it with their software; the LSB wont do it for them but it wont "get in the
way" either.
> Has that worked yet. If it worked we should have 1000's of ISV's sorry
> 0install has more people providing packages in there format than LSB.
>
> Really distribution model could completely fail there is no reason why if
> ISV application install works why users could not be installing just as
> many applications threw ISV channels as what they install threw there
> distribution channels. Over time users many just not install Distribution
> provided applications if ISV provided applications are better quality. So
> size conciderations have to be taken into account. If you cannot build a
> distribution using the LSB packaging model it cannot work in real world
> long term.
As I said when I started this topic, this is about useing distribution package
managers: if you want to explain why 0install is better, or distributions
must be destoyed, please use another thread.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20081223/32660093/attachment.pgp
More information about the packaging
mailing list