PDA

View Full Version : I Am Sick of Compiling.



Dekkon
February 17th, 2009, 02:13 AM
Am I the only user who is sick of the way Linux has so much "choice" on how you install software. I am all for choice, but is there seriously a limit. Shouldn't we be all working on one great package managers to fix these problems instead of having two main ones(RPM, DEB). When your program isn't in the repos and doesn't have your respected package, this is a problem and is quite annoying.

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/3290/cmakeincompletetv6.png

Especially when they don't give instructions on how to compile, I love getting errors.

To end this rant. Who is all for one package manger or a standard? I realize a big part of Linux is about choice, but this a big problem for users and not developers.

*Begin flames now* :(

Twitch6000
February 17th, 2009, 02:17 AM
Well I know I wouldn't mind a standard of some sort.

However It seems you are forcing yourself to compile programs...

I am not trying to flame or anything,but in all my years of Linux(2 years) I have not had to compile one program.

Mind telling us what programs you seem not able to get a .deb for??

kk0sse54
February 17th, 2009, 02:21 AM
If either deb or rpm became the standard way for package management for Linux I'd probably completely stop using it.

dasunst3r
February 17th, 2009, 02:23 AM
What programs are you trying to obtain anyway?

ridetheteapot
February 17th, 2009, 02:25 AM
Really someone has to review a package before it gets put in the repo. There are so many packages that the repos are slow to add new versions. It's really a good thing for securities sake.

having to compile means that you'll have the code there that you could have looked over, and at least then if something is real busted ubuntu repos aren't responsible

bruce89
February 17th, 2009, 02:25 AM
Technically, there is a standard (Linux Standard Base), which mandates the use of rpm.

There will never be one package management system, for the same reasons there is more than one text editor. Also, there is a lot more to a package management system than just the package format, such as the directories used for certain files.

The fact of the matter is that packages are distro-specific, source code isn't.

Dekkon
February 17th, 2009, 02:28 AM
Well I know I wouldn't mind a standard of some sort.

However It seems you are forcing yourself to compile programs...

I am not trying to flame or anything,but in all my years of Linux(2 years) I have not had to compile one program.

Mind telling us what programs you seem not able to get a .deb for??

It was actually Playwolf, they have Deb packages but I use OpenSuse, I just really like the Ubuntu Community, and their forums.


If either deb or rpm became the standard way for package management for Linux I'd probably completely stop using it.

I was not suggesting a solution, I have heard of the troubles of both RPM and DEB packaging systems.

I am just all for a standard that defines how software to be installed and makes it easy and no compiling for us users, even as a web developer, I really do not like compiling other peoples programs. I'd hate to see what regular users have to go through.


Technically, there is a standard (Linux Standard Base), which mandates the use of rpm.

There will never be one package management system, for the same reasons there is more than one text editor. Also, there is a lot more to a package management system than just the package format, such as the directories used for certain files.

The fact of the matter is that packages are distro-specific, source code isn't.

Maybe a standard for which directories applications are installed and other such would be nice, I know it would certainly help me. After using Linux for a year, I still don't know where applications are installed, I just have a clue, but still don't know.

dragos240
February 17th, 2009, 02:29 AM
Isn't there a yum package or something?

BuffaloX
February 17th, 2009, 02:34 AM
I never understood why there need to be different package managers for different distros.
I would gladly accept a universal package manager, provided it is at least as good as what we already have.

bruce89
February 17th, 2009, 02:41 AM
I never understood why there need to be different package managers for different distros.
I would gladly accept a universal package manager, provided it is at least as good as what we already have.

Why are there different Desktop Environments?

jimi_hendrix
February 17th, 2009, 02:43 AM
run windows

Cybie257
February 17th, 2009, 02:49 AM
I know that there are reasons for RPM and DEB and i do agree that it would be nice for a standard. Personally, I think Linux could really boom big-time if there was an overall standard in the filesystem so that no matter what distro you chose, it's all the same and either RPM or DEB packages would install.

I've been playing around with Linux for many years, beginning back in the days when Red Hat was the main distro for desktop users. Sure, there were others, but RedHat was moving things along really well. Remembering back when I was a newbie, it was extremely frustrating as repositories weren't much if any and just hoping that a program came as an RPM. Now that I am a bit more experienced, things aren't so tough to accomplish, but I do think about the newbies today and totally understand where they come from when they say "Linux is just to hard for me to learn". It's not that it's hard to learn, really, but hard to grasp the differences and how to use things like Synaptics Package Manager. But, there is one thing that I discovered not too long ago that I think has an excellent opportunity to help things along:

When I downloaded the first 6.xx version of VMWare Workstation, it was in a .bundle package. That was a painless install. The question is, though, do they work in RPM-Based distros also? I have yet to try. Ever since 6.04 Ubuntu, I've been using it as the main distro. The Ubuntu Team has been doing an excellent job getting things up to speed, easy to use, and "it just works". 7.04 was the first distro to achieve full hardware functionality for my laptop. Until then, laptops were a pain in the @$$ to install Linux on. Always something didn't work and something big enough that, well, WinBloze would be re-installed on. :(

I understand your frustration and hope that you don't give up on Linux as things are improving everyday. Hardware manufacturers are stepping up and making drivers for Linux. With the lack of driver for so many things, and so many things that I want to have working on my Linux box, I'm more than happy to see a 'compile only' program if that's what it takes. Also, as an Open Source enthusiasts, if such drivers need to be proprietary, so be it, as long as my hardware works! :) So, hang in there and see where it all goes.

-Cybie:popcorn:

oldsoundguy
February 17th, 2009, 02:55 AM
Why are there different Desktop Environments?

to answer this one .. just the way I got answered when I had the gall to suggest that Linux developers should get together and work out the differences and compromise .. AND get more real work done other than painting each others distros in a bad color or spinning off a new build just because they want to add some "snazzy" icons and cant get the other builds to adopt them!
the answer I got .. "because they can and that is the philosophy of open source."

adding another .. on the late arrival of update packages in the repositories .. yea .. a prod or two could help in that area .. such as I am getting tired of the "there is a new version of this program available" when on a site and NOT being able to find it in the repo sites!
Personally, if that site wants us to use their new program, they should upload the update and let us do it from the manager vs compiling their latest version!

(and there will be a continuing battle between .rpm & deb .. but since more now use deb, you MAY see rpm diminish in usage.)

Dekkon
February 17th, 2009, 03:07 AM
Why are there different Desktop Environments?

Desktop Environments can completely affect the way a user uses a desktop and there computer.

Unlike installing software, which achieves the same thing and shouldn't really have a need to be different. What is the problem with having a universal installer?



run windows

Are you going to tell everyone that, that wants to use Linux?

Ignorant and stupid, and probably not the best way to gain share of the desktop market share and certainly is not helping Linux's reputation of being a great community.



(and there will be a continuing battle between .rpm & deb .. but since more now use deb, you MAY see rpm diminish in usage.)

Which saddens me because Kubuntu has a poor implementation of KDE and they fail to improve it anytime soon, so I resorted to using OpenSuse.

mamamia88
February 17th, 2009, 03:12 AM
yeah i'm kind of tired of googling how to install stuff that's not in the repos or in deb format

BuffaloX
February 17th, 2009, 03:12 AM
Why are there different Desktop Environments?

I think that's an unfair comparison.
As I understand package managers they check dependencies and distribute some files and probably update some database/list over installed packages.

This could easily be universal without sacrificing anything.
Having a universal directory structure would also be nice.
If the different distros don't want that, we could use environment variables to specify the location, or links to mimic other structures.

We only have one Emacs and one Gnome they are not distro specific, why is package management?

It's a mess IMO.

bruce89
February 17th, 2009, 03:13 AM
to answer this one .. just the way I got answered when I had the gall to suggest that Linux developers should get together and work out the differences and compromise .. AND get more real work done other than painting each others distros in a bad color or spinning off a new build just because they want to add some "snazzy" icons and cant get the other builds to adopt them!
the answer I got .. "because they can and that is the philosophy of open source."


Desktop Environments can completely affect the way a user uses a desktop and there computer.

Unlike installing software, which achieves the same thing and shouldn't really have a need to be different. What is the problem with having a universal installer?

I wasn't asking a question, I was trying to say "If there's more than one DE, why shouldn't there be more than one package system?"

SunnyRabbiera
February 17th, 2009, 03:16 AM
well truth is there is not actually a standard installer on windows either, people think "hey its all .exe" on windows but its not.
Windows has .tar, .msi, .exe and more...
why dont we break arms over there too while were at it.

Dekkon
February 17th, 2009, 03:21 AM
I wasn't asking a question, I was trying to say "If there's more than one DE, why shouldn't there be more than one package system?"

You asked a question this time, and the answer is: Is there really a need for more then one package manager? No, The Disadvantages of more then one package manager, outweigh the Advantages more then enough to start doing something about it.

Choice is a good thing, when you know where it should be and where it isn't needed.


well truth is there is not actually a standard installer on windows either, people think "hey its all .exe" on windows but its not.
Windows has .tar, .msi, .exe and more...
why dont we break arms over there too while were at it.

There isn't really a need to have a standard on Windows though, because the target is sure to be running the same XP as the other user. All the installers act in the same way, install in the same directories(Unless otherwise specified), put a shortcut in the menu, icon on desktop, and settings in Registry, usually and mostly all the time.

Linux on the other hand, poses a problem, because of the overload of distributions and a greater possibility of different workings that are installed on the target's system. A standard is obviously a must, and would complement the user in so many ways, it's not funny.

cardinals_fan
February 17th, 2009, 03:22 AM
This is why I use SliTaz. Not in the repos? I just modify a receipt and cook myself a package. I'm planning to start contributing my receipts to the community soon.

SunnyRabbiera
February 17th, 2009, 03:37 AM
You asked a question this time, and the answer is: Is there really a need for more then one package manager? No, The Disadvantages of more then one package manager, outweigh the Advantages more then enough to start doing something about it.

Choice is a good thing, when you know where it should be and where it isn't needed.



There isn't really a need to have a standard on Windows though, because the target is sure to be running the same XP as the other user. All the installers act in the same way, install in the same directories(Unless otherwise specified), put a shortcut in the menu, icon on desktop, and settings in Registry, usually and mostly all the time.

Linux on the other hand, poses a problem, because of the overload of distributions and a greater possibility of different workings that are installed on the target's system. A standard is obviously a must, and would complement the user in so many ways, it's not funny.

well lets just make one linux, anyone who doesnt use it must me sued a bazillion dollars.
Look this is not windows, if you only want one installer, one interface use windows...
Linux is meant to have individuality.

Dekkon
February 17th, 2009, 03:45 AM
well lets just make one linux, anyone who doesnt use it must me sued a bazillion dollars.
Look this is not windows, if you only want one installer, one interface use windows...
Linux is meant to have individuality.

Your argument is invalid and completely irreverent and doesn't suggest something that would fix the current problems with having "choice" in package managers.

Stfu, Please? Next time post a possible solution instead.

kk0sse54
February 17th, 2009, 03:59 AM
Your argument is invalid and completely irreverent and doesn't suggest something that would fix the current problems with having "choice" in package managers.

Stfu, Please? Next time post a possible solution instead.
Please be considerate and respectful to other members.

Otherwise I don't see what the problem with having choice over package management is. Personally I enjoy sourced based distros and really don't understand why it's so hard to compile things, but I understand that it's not for everyone so that's why you use a binary based package management. I can almost assure you that your idea of package standardization is completely different from mine or the next person's since not everyone likes deb packages or rpm.

handy
February 17th, 2009, 04:01 AM
To the OP; what you want is never going to happen.

The reason that GNU Linux exists, in all of its manifestations, is solely due to the FOSS licensing situation.

If you have a little think about that, what this situation does, is give individuals & groups of whatever size, the freedom to create.

This creation process builds on other people's work & allows others to build on it.

How can anyone possibly consider that it is possible to somehow constrain & limit the creativity of so many people, so as to have things done in the FOSS community the way that they want the FOSS community to do things?

This is impossible.

Apart from the fact that so many Linux users really like the way things are now, & the way things are going.

Give us freedom of choice, don't make us all use someone else's favourite way to do something?

I always recommend Mac OSX to people that want it simple & easy. :-)

cardinals_fan
February 17th, 2009, 04:04 AM
@OP: What do you want this magic single packaging format to be?

BuffaloX
February 17th, 2009, 04:10 AM
Actually I think it doesn't matter there is different Package managers, the problem is that there are different package formats.
Would it be possible to make a standard package format, which could be read by different package managers?

juanmoreno92
February 17th, 2009, 04:11 AM
If you don't like compiling try Gentoo

phrostbyte
February 17th, 2009, 04:13 AM
No need for a single package manager or package format, BUT ...

It would be nice if there was a single source repository. Distros could fork from this repo. This would save a lot of time developers spend packaging.

Dekkon
February 17th, 2009, 04:14 AM
@OP: What do you want this magic single packaging format to be?

Never suggested a single packaging format, all I want is a simple way to install programs that works the same way on most distributions, the tech savvy can still use there own methods but please don't impose them on us average users.

If this is impossible to achieve on Linux, then I really don't understand why everyone wants average users to use this. There is no reason why you should have to go through the trouble.

Also, sorry for being inconsiderate.

BuffaloX
February 17th, 2009, 04:15 AM
@OP: What do you want this magic single packaging format to be?

Why would it need to be magic?
Surely Package managing isn't that complex.
Or is it?

kk0sse54
February 17th, 2009, 04:17 AM
Never suggested a single packaging format, all I want is a simple way to install programs that works the same way on most distributions, the tech savvy can still use there own methods but please don't impose them on us average users.

If this is impossible to achieve on Linux, then I really don't understand why everyone wants average users to use this. There is no reason why you should have to go through the trouble.

Also, sorry for being inconsiderate.

A simple way to install packages is called Synaptic and the CLI apt-get which is why there are distros available from the Debian branch (ubuntu etc etc...).


It would be nice if there was a single source repository. Distros could fork from this repo. This would save a lot of time developers spend packaging.
i understand what you are saying but considering the amount of software out there who in there right mind would host a server like that?

handy
February 17th, 2009, 04:19 AM
If you don't like compiling try Gentoo

:lolflag:

That's what I thought this thread was about when I first saw the title of it. :-)

kk0sse54
February 17th, 2009, 04:20 AM
Why would it need to be magic?
Surely Package managing isn't that complex.
Or is it?

Have you ever tried to make a deb package? ;)

phrostbyte
February 17th, 2009, 04:26 AM
A simple way to install packages is called Synaptic and the CLI apt-get which is why there are distros available from the Debian branch (ubuntu etc etc...).


i understand what you are saying but considering the amount of software out there who in there right mind would host a server like that?

Google, IBM, the Linux Foundation..

It wouldn't be that much bigger then Ubuntu repo anyway. All distros have to package software, and usually the same software. Mostly I think a consistent source package repo would save time packaging software that could be used making their distros better in other ways.

Dekkon
February 17th, 2009, 04:26 AM
i understand what you are saying but considering the amount of software out there who in there right mind would host a server like that?

Let alone update it and keep it current.

dmizer
February 17th, 2009, 04:29 AM
Actually, you can install whatever package manager you like on any distribution you like. Last I checked, Apt works perfectly fine on Fedora for example (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tools/Apt).

That's what choice is about.

kk0sse54
February 17th, 2009, 04:29 AM
Google, IBM, the Linux Foundation..

It wouldn't be that much bigger then Ubuntu repo anyway. All distros have to package software, and usually the same software. Mostly I think a consistent source package repo would save time packaging software that could be used making their distros better in other ways.

They would have to be sourced based packages like you said since most distros uses different package management. Thus the only time saved will be searching for the package since it will still take time to create the distro specific package and any possible patches. So in essence I don't think that much time would be saved.

Dekkon
February 17th, 2009, 04:39 AM
Actually, you can install whatever package manager you like on any distribution you like. Last I checked, Apt works perfectly fine on Fedora for example (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tools/Apt).

That's what choice is about.

Does that mean I can install .Deb on Fedora?

I wish, If only there was a way to have choice but get rid of this problem. I guess I will be dealing with this for a long time because I really believe and like what Open-Source is about.

Gen2ly
February 17th, 2009, 04:46 AM
If you don't like compiling try Gentoo

< Gentoo user. Unsure what the big deal is. Yeah you've taken to tough path and looking for a fully customizable system. That's cool, learning gcc is a task though. If you do really want a very very customized system, you might want to look at Gentoo which has a very mature compiling system.

Just my take.

cardinals_fan
February 17th, 2009, 04:48 AM
Never suggested a single packaging format, all I want is a simple way to install programs that works the same way on most distributions, the tech savvy can still use there own methods but please don't impose them on us average users.

If this is impossible to achieve on Linux, then I really don't understand why everyone wants average users to use this. There is no reason why you should have to go through the trouble.

Also, sorry for being inconsiderate.
Use what works for you.

I use minimal apps and build my own packages.

adamlau
February 17th, 2009, 05:32 AM
Using minimal apps with minimal options using minimal resources can only be accomplished by building according to personal preferences. Could it be any simpler than that?

Twitch6000
February 17th, 2009, 05:39 AM
Well here is the .rpm I think you are looking for...

http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/12013287/com/plasmoid-playwolf-0.7-1.3.i586.rpm.html

And as for a all in one downloading tool there is zero install I use it and it works great.

handy
February 17th, 2009, 05:57 AM
Actually, you can install whatever package manager you like on any distribution you like. Last I checked, Apt works perfectly fine on Fedora for example (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tools/Apt).

That's what choice is about.

I don't think pacman quite fits in there.

Miguel
February 17th, 2009, 06:03 AM
Package management is easy.

On one hand, you could have all programs compiled with static libraries and bundled with their own libraries. Thus, the package manager only needs to drop the program in /usr/my-fancy-and-unique-name and a binary in /usr/bin. Maybe a menu entry, some docs and, if it's a library, do some other stuff. This is more or less what installers do on windows. Contrary to what many people think, this approach can also work in linux, and is the reason why proprietary programs such as Mathematica or Matlab or the Intel Compilers do work in several different linux distros without tweaking anything.

But you can be a perfectionist. And think that bundling libGLU.so for the 1000th time is not all that efficient. And you may think that, if there's a security vulnerability in, let's say libogg.so, you don't want to rebundle every single program using it in order to fix the security vulnerability. So you have that permissive license, and distribute absolutely everything as shared and stripped binaries, that depend on certain libraries already being installed on the system and on certain places. This requires an extremely advanced package manager in order to keep track of stuff and not be stuck in a circular problem (dependency hell).

You can also have a middle of the road approach, sharing the most basic libraries, but bundling the more rare ones.

Anyway, linux distros are based on the second model. But there comes the difference. You may think the ideal place for pictures is ~/Pics, while I could think that's silly, and that ~/Photos is infinitely better. And then your girlfriend will hate us for not putting stuff in ~/Images. Great. So now spyware looking for holiday pictures will have to look in all those directories. This is basically the difference between distros, and why some packages end up being different: people from different distros have a different idea on the perfect way to build a system. So even though there are some standards (hello LSB), not everything is overregulated, which can result in some discrepancies keeping some converted rpms from working.

dmizer
February 17th, 2009, 06:29 AM
Does that mean I can install .Deb on Fedora?

I wish, If only there was a way to have choice but get rid of this problem. I guess I will be dealing with this for a long time because I really believe and like what Open-Source is about.

No, that means you can use apt to install RPMs in Fedora just like you use apt to install DEBs in debian.

Fedora will never use DEBs, and debian will never use RPMs because the file system and other fundamental design concepts are too different.

swoll1980
February 17th, 2009, 07:09 AM
I'm not complaining 'cause I don't care, but I think this is one of the main reasons propitiatory software companies stay away from Linux. They can't release the source, so that gets rid of that option, and since there is no standard they would have to produce different packages, for different distros.

shadylookin
February 17th, 2009, 07:11 AM
make
sudo make install

it's not terribly hard. if anything running the configure script is the real pain because that's where it checks for dependencies that you'll have to hunt down. Everything could be released as binaries with all the libraries packed in, but that causes it's own problems.

I wouldn't really consider this a problem since most popular projects will have someone willing to make packages for the major distros.

Polygon
February 17th, 2009, 09:36 AM
linux is source compatible not binary compatible, so even if there was only one package format we would still have to make packages for most every distro out there.

Bölvağur
February 17th, 2009, 11:34 AM
No need for a single package manager or package format, BUT ...

It would be nice if there was a single source repository. Distros could fork from this repo. This would save a lot of time developers spend packaging.

This is the most intelligent post in this thread. But the problem with this is that the source repos would need to be maintained in some way (depending on what level of security and organized structure we want to obtain before it is accessed by different distro repos).


Package managers in linux are the gold of installers of any other os, as they keep much more data and allow us to do so much more than on other systems.
You cannot have the easy lifestyle of package managers in binary installing or compiling only type of world. Specially when we think about updates and deletion of unnecessary files/packages.


I have only compiled 1 program vs few hundred .deb intsalls vs few binary installs and tens of a tar.gz that contained all the data needed to be run directly after unpacking it.


Let's say that we had 1 package manager only.
Then it would not be able to base it's work on other packages' constantly updating source code. There would be the same people working on that package manager and there was before with people from other package manager projects either stop contributing to the foss community or do something else they are interested in. In the end we would have less people working on package managers and slower innovation.
We would get 1 package format, so you would possibly be able to get that format to install from program's websites. But there is always going to be a delay for packages to reach distro's repos.

Developers are like children, they play with what ever they want to play with and will not focus on a very dull toy just because some people want them to.

wersdaluv
February 17th, 2009, 11:38 AM
Why compile? If you're not leet enough, you shouldn't play with apps not popular enough not to have a deb

adamlau
February 17th, 2009, 11:57 AM
But why would I want a Pidgin deb with unnecessary gstreamer deps when it runs aplay %s w/o issue? Or Brasero with wodim when I want libburnia only? Thunar without plugins to slow it down? aria2 without BitTorrent support because I prefer rTorrent? Why would I deb it when I can build it with -march-native -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer? No way...

mohitchawla
February 17th, 2009, 12:27 PM
I guess I must have read this somewhere on these forums or maybe /.
So what I read was that, its all open source and free and any sort of conception to form a "standard" would not please the developers as it would take away *their* freedom to do things and their ideas, and so it would be all monotonous, really..and that monotony is something that definitely doesn't characterize linux/FOSS in general. So that's that.

But when it comes to the users, yeah it can be frustrating at times, because well popular apps never posed many issues to anyone when you compile 'em and even if there are, they are popular and they do have good documentation on how to compile and all. But its those obscure software that hasn't got anything except ./configure make make install stuff and no matter what you do it wont compile. And then you might find a thread in some even more obscure mailing list just to have replies "did you do this that" and there would be no conclusion to that thread. So that's that.

Anyway, LSB were doing something and I guess at least on /. there were not many positive replies to that. So, I guess this *is* an issue that needs to be addressed. Just that I haven't able to read up on (if there are any) *official* statements/views about this from the developers themselves or a formal poll from users on any common and popular platform regarding this. Now this has been started here, it gets replies "which software was it"..."here's the link". Surely you are helping , but I guess there ought to be a better answer. I am just shootin' in the dark. :popcorn:

Dekkon
February 17th, 2009, 07:43 PM
Freedom is what makes Linux what it is, guess standards would interfere with there Freedom.

I really don't see why developers would complain about a directory standard, I mean there is a standard for Documents and I haven't seen one developer complain about ODF? Cause it is a good format and the developers are working to improve that, instead of creating duplicates with the same purpose.

I believe if there was a solution that developers agreed on, it could be further developed with agreement upon it, similar to ODF.

Thats what I believe open source should be about.

BuffaloX
February 17th, 2009, 08:36 PM
@Dekkon:
+1


Actually, you can install whatever package manager you like on any distribution you like. Last I checked, Apt works perfectly fine on Fedora for example (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tools/Apt).

That's what choice is about.

Sure thing it's Linux, but are the other package managers available as .deb files?
Also it's a very impractical solution, since different package managers don't handle dependencies between them AFAIK.

I haven't seen one argument yet against a unified package manager or format, except not liking it or this is Linux deal with it.

shadylookin
February 17th, 2009, 08:44 PM
But when it comes to the users, yeah it can be frustrating at times, because well popular apps never posed many issues to anyone when you compile 'em and even if there are, they are popular and they do have good documentation on how to compile and all. But its those obscure software that hasn't got anything except ./configure make make install stuff and no matter what you do it wont compile. And then you might find a thread in some even more obscure mailing list just to have replies "did you do this that" and there would be no conclusion to that thread. So that's that.

the phrase when you're on the bleeding edge don't be surprised when you're the one bleeding comes to mind. If you must have the latest and greatest or obscure software you're the one that's going to have deal with the issues

BuffaloX
February 17th, 2009, 08:53 PM
But why would I want a Pidgin deb with unnecessary gstreamer deps when it runs aplay %s w/o issue? Or Brasero with wodim when I want libburnia only? Thunar without plugins to slow it down? aria2 without BitTorrent support because I prefer rTorrent? Why would I deb it when I can build it with -march-native -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer? No way...

Actually this is a question of how stuff is packaged, not the formats being different.

Gstreamer is not a dependency but a recommendation, but I understand what you mean.

macogw
February 17th, 2009, 09:00 PM
If you find software that's not packaged in Ubuntu, please file a bug at http://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu

Begin the title with [needs-packaging] and add the needs-packaging tag.

If it is quality software (and, ya know, not malware), someone will probably package it up.

aaaantoine
February 17th, 2009, 11:46 PM
Isn't this why PackageKit is being developed? Or is that to solve some other problem?

Dekkon
February 17th, 2009, 11:57 PM
Isn't this why PackageKit is being developed? Or is that to solve some other problem?

It's focus tries to unify the graphical part of installing software, my focus is trying to unify the backend part of software management. So the problems between RPM Vs. DEB would no longer exist, and users can live free of that problem.

phaed
February 18th, 2009, 12:04 AM
If you find software that's not packaged in Ubuntu, please file a bug at http://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu

Begin the title with [needs-packaging] and add the needs-packaging tag.

If it is quality software (and, ya know, not malware), someone will probably package it up.

Excellent suggestion. Thanks for the tip.

smartboyathome
February 18th, 2009, 12:08 AM
It's focus tries to unify the graphical part of installing software, my focus is trying to unify the backend part of software management. So the problems between RPM Vs. DEB would no longer exist, and users can live free of that problem.

Sure, lets do this. Lets also unify the Desktop Environments/Window Managers so there won't be any more GNOME vs. KDE vs. XFCE vs. etc debates. Lets also unify all the apps for each purpose, and filter all the developers so that we can make one awesome operating system. That is, until everyone leaves and goes to BSD because they don't like where Linux is headed. ;)

Dekkon
February 18th, 2009, 12:43 AM
Sure, lets do this. Lets also unify the Desktop Environments/Window Managers so there won't be any more GNOME vs. KDE vs. XFCE vs. etc debates. Lets also unify all the apps for each purpose, and filter all the developers so that we can make one awesome operating system. That is, until everyone leaves and goes to BSD because they don't like where Linux is headed. ;)

Did anyone here say you were going to be forced to use it?

Nobody is forcing you to use the ODF format, but because everyone agrees that it is a good format, developers continue to improve it, further it, and embrace it. If Packagekit is good software, the same will also happen for it, which I believe it is.

It will never be forced.

bruce89
February 18th, 2009, 01:17 AM
It's focus tries to unify the graphical part of installing software, my focus is trying to unify the backend part of software management. So the problems between RPM Vs. DEB would no longer exist, and users can live free of that problem.

Try convincing all distros to use the same toolchain and library versions.

Dekkon
February 18th, 2009, 01:25 AM
Try convincing all distros to use the same toolchain and library versions.

Maybe not, but most distributions should atleast follow a directory structure and other mindless things that could easily be the same that most agree on, that way atleast a Suse RPM has a better chance of installing on Fedora, instead of people having to package for Suse and Fedora.

It's all so confusing. *sigh*

bruce89
February 18th, 2009, 01:40 AM
Maybe not, but most distributions should atleast follow a directory structure and other mindless things that could easily be the same that most agree on, that way atleast a Suse RPM has a better chance of installing on Fedora, instead of people having to package for Suse and Fedora.

Even having the files in the same places, the toolchain issues would break this anyway.

I'd advocate not packaging for any distro, and to just release source code.

earthpigg
February 18th, 2009, 01:43 AM
is there an alien (http://kitenet.net/~joey/code/alien/) equivelant for your distro, dekkon?

edit: yup, there is an addon for alien that lets you convert from deb to rpm or what have you. scroll down on that link above a bit.

i trust this solves all of your problems?

Keyper7
February 18th, 2009, 01:54 AM
No matter how good your arguments in favor of death penalty are, they don't really matter if the police is too incompetent to arrest criminals. No matter how good your arguments in favor of package unification are, they don't really matter if developers do not follow it.

When it was the last time you compiled Skype? Or Adobe Reader? It's not difficult to make distro-independent installers that either a) follow the filesystem hierarchy standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard) or b) simply throw all files in /opt. If a program you like currently ignores those already-easy options, hardly a unified packaging system would help.

smartboyathome
February 18th, 2009, 03:39 AM
Did anyone here say you were going to be forced to use it?

Nobody is forcing you to use the ODF format, but because everyone agrees that it is a good format, developers continue to improve it, further it, and embrace it. If Packagekit is good software, the same will also happen for it, which I believe it is.

It will never be forced.

I don't use the ODF format, I have to use the .doc method as that is all that my school will accept. I think that, until there is that wonderful package manager which everyone loves, this won't happen. ;)

earthpigg
February 18th, 2009, 06:00 AM
until there is that wonderful package manager which everyone loves, this won't happen. ;)

i hope it never happens. competition ftw.

phrostbyte
February 18th, 2009, 09:37 AM
It's focus tries to unify the graphical part of installing software, my focus is trying to unify the backend part of software management. So the problems between RPM Vs. DEB would no longer exist, and users can live free of that problem.

Well look, I agree though that a single package format for all the major distros (Red Hat / SuSE / Ubuntu / Debian) would be helpful. However I do not think it's really a major problem though. If you are looking for software outside of your distro repository, that's a failure in itself. Basically your solution doesn't make sense for your problem! You wouldn't have a problem if SuSE packaged whatever you were compiling. So the real question is why isn't XYZ packaged? It's a failure of the distro really.

But to answer what you said directly.. actually this has already been done, the LSB (Linux Standard Base) requires the use of RPM packages. Unsurprisingly Debian is not LSB compliant (in more then just this manner though). Debian refused to adopt RPM because especially at the time they sucked compared to Debian's package system and format, and many were pretty much appalled that RPM would be made into a 'standard'. It's doubtful that Debian will ever adopt RPM, but maybe a new package format that offers some kind of real advantages and also an agreement between all the major distros could be adopted, maybe. I think it's very unlikely because Red Hat is in love with RPM and Debian is in love with DEB. So it's quite unlikely. Really it would require major diplomacy, if it were to ever happen.

toupeiro
February 18th, 2009, 09:44 AM
I'm sick of people complaining about all the different ways to install apps on linux like any other platform is any different whatsoever... Just be honest, you don't care about the packaging methodology so long as you can double-click to start it off. Thats the only standard most people are longing for, but they want to make it sound like its some big gap linux has thats exclusive to linux. The simple truth is that most people really do not care what they doubleclick as long as it works, and thats why there is no real "standard" way to install anything on any platform. Even .MSI has about a million different ways you can accomplish the same tasks. The only standard there is MS Logo compliance which changes at Microsofts whim so it is their own standard more than any industry standard.

If you actually cared about the problem you're addressing, you would really respect compiling a WHOLE lot more because its a true standard that can be addressed across ALL platforms.

Linux won't have a standard, for the same reason Windows, Mac, or UNIX won't have a standard. Because nobody wants to recognize compiling as a standard, when in fact thats the fundamental first step to everything you're running on your computer now. Could you make compiling easier? Sure you could! Could you make packaging easier by using different formats, sure you could! Packages are great big click-able easy buttons for the average user, and I definitely encourage anyone and everyone to use em' if you got em', but don't think that developers are somehow out of touch if they don't give you one, and certainly don't think its a "linux problem"