Linux packaging and software installation - need a rethink ?

[lykwydchykyn]

Why does no one seem to acknowledge that there is a problem here? Why is everyone so adamant on insisting that the packaging system is great
and we need not touch it ?

What kind of response are you expecting? You're not talking to the people who would make this happen.

OK. Your idea is fine. It would solve some problems. It would create others. Maybe the net result would be better, maybe not.

In any case, it's not likely to happen without a herculean effort between a massive number of FOSS communities.

If you do decide to approach actual distro devs with this idea, expect it to be held to a critical examination far more strenuous than you've got going here. You'd be asking people to accept many constraints, take on a lot of extra work, and throw out a lot of things that work perfectly fine 90% of the time for a few dubious benefits; they aren't going to do that uncritically.

[ian-weisser]

The very fact that an app has to be back 'ported' to make it work on just the previous version of the same OS , same hw, same arch is fundamentally wrong.

It's not Ubuntu's fault, nor this community's fault, if a newer version of the application introduces a bug. Talk to that development team.

Backporting is merely the process of recompiling and retesting a newer version for the same OS, same hw, same arch. Indeed the process of community backporting is a *feature* so that everyone can benefit from a single user's testing work.

I don't see how the package manager is relevant to that discussion.

[QdFPLGz]

What kind of response are you expecting?

Atleast some one acknowledging that there do exist some problems with the current packaging system.
The first step in solving a problem is to admit there is one.
No one is willing to even admit there is a problem with the way apps are currently distributed and installed in linux.
But I think slowly with the advent of Ubuntu for mobiles, the 'One click packages' will become more widespread
and hopefully desktop linux will also migrate towards such a model.
I might have lost this battle but the war might yet be won ...
Time will tell....

[CharlesA]

Considering the developers do not post here, I doubt you will get the acknowledgment you seek here.

Try the dlevel mailing list.

http://www.ubuntu.com/support/community/mailing-lists

[lykwydchykyn]

Atleast some one acknowledging that there do exist some problems with the current packaging system.
The first step in solving a problem is to admit there is one.
No one is willing to even admit there is a problem with the way apps are currently distributed and installed in linux.

I don't think anyone's denying there are problems with the way PM works. It's just that the problems aren't compelling enough for anyone to want to champion such a massive change. Not being able to install any arbitrary old version of a program, or install a 20-year old piece of software, is an irritation or annoyance. It doesn't warrant imposing massive limitations and requirements on the developer community. OK, that's my opinion, and you feel differently. In either case, it's moot, because I can't do a thing about how distros package software.

[mastablasta]

well it's just a debate about Ubutnu, Linux and OS (i don't understand this thread to be a manifesto or some schedule, request or task) between some people with interest in the OS.

to continue - the question to me is would the effort really be so massive? as i understand PBI packages the PC-BSD already has this option. would implementing similar thing in linux really require massive efforts? or could some things be ported over from BSD? the systems are relatively similar (though different) and ports betwen them are made in certain cases. they also borow from eachother or implement same things. both are open and free though licences are different.

[23dornot23d]

If the applications have bugs ......... they should not run in the latest version surely

So if Ktoon had a bug - it should not run
So if K3dsurf had a bug - it should not run on the latest version
So if Gnofract4d had a bug - it too should not run in 14.04 on the latest kernel released today

The only one I really need is Wings3d .... ( on 32 bit and its still giving me screen flickering problems - anyone have
any idea why Erlang and Wings3d are in conflict on 14.04 ......... )

And why cannot a package manager install a working version of Wings3d - is it out of date - is it buggy - is it not required ?

or were some Erlang programs added for Saucy that caused some problems ..... Erlang removes Wings3d by default now
so what is wrong with Wings 3d that the package managers do not like ? anyone know

and to answer one comment - do you want 4 year old applications running - well Yes - if they work and if they
are what the User is used to and would still like to use.

But not at the cost of over working the Developers ... the way is clearly forward ...... no backtracking to solve
problems they cannot solve .........

Applications .... are they really at fault ...........

I just did a short video on things that are not included now - they run on my system 32 bit too ....... but will they
run on yours and how well does the package manager resolve the dependencies ....... or is that not its task ?

http://youtu.be/UniZnxZn4so

Not that I would disagree - if there are clear and easy instructions to follow to get an older packages working
that will do for me .... some people post some really good instructions ..... but the package manager is not bad
really ..... the list is only short for what it cannot install with one click.

[lykwydchykyn]

to continue - the question to me is would the effort really be so massive?

Implementing yet-another-packaging-system would not be the hard part. Re-read the original post. The first point starts "All distros should agree". You can stop right there and have a massive enough effort, but the remaining points involve requiring all libraries to be backwards compatible and all applications to degrade gracefully when compiled against older versions. That's the massive effort I'm talking about.

[mastablasta]

Implementing yet-another-packaging-system would not be the hard part. Re-read the original post. The first point starts "All distros should agree". You can stop right there and have a massive enough effort, but the remaining points involve requiring all libraries to be backwards compatible and all applications to degrade gracefully when compiled against older versions. That's the massive effort I'm talking about.

yes ok well all distributon would be a bit hard to achieve since they each use different kinds of package management.

libraries could come with packages and if they are the ones software works with then software would use them. or it could use new one ifthey work better.

As i udnerstand libraries come along with windows programs because developers do not know if users already have them installed or not. and if they do have them installed they again do not know which version.

another thing i've noticed (talking about stable, and current system) is that there are many packages currently in the repository that do not work when installed. if you check the comments on some they have bad ratings as well as "not working" in the comment. surely those packages should have been removed (or updated). it is quite strange to me that packages like that are still in repositories of an LTS while some other (working ones) need extra repository (e.g. like some of those found on playdeb or only in PPAs).

[lykwydchykyn]

another thing i've noticed (talking about stable, and current system) is that there are many packages currently in the repository that do not work when installed. if you check the comments on some they have bad ratings as well as "not working" in the comment. surely those packages should have been removed (or updated). it is quite strange to me that packages like that are still in repositories of an LTS while some other (working ones) need extra repository (e.g. like some of those found on playdeb or only in PPAs).

This has more to do with the way the Ubuntu repos are pulled in from Debian. As I understand it (and I could be fuzzy on some details here), basically the entire Debian repositories are brought in at the beginning of every release cycle. Stuff that Canonical "officially" supports goes into main, everything else goes into Universe. Some things in Universe have active maintainers that apply patches and so forth, but a lot of it is just pretty much default debian packaging recompiled for Ubuntu, with nobody actually tracking bugs or testing them within Ubuntu.

PPAs provide people a means of circumventing the Debian route for packages. So if you have a package that has been languishing for some reason in Debian, and Ubuntu doesn't particularly care about it, it might be broken in the repos; but someone can upload a working version to a PPA without a lot of overhead.