[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