[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: LSB Package API



On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Denis Washington <dwashington gmx net> wrote:
> I don't think this is a corner case at all. For one thing, propietary
> applications might just don't play a role _because_ there is no really
> good distribution method for them - the typical chicken-and-egg problem.

I do not want to make proprietary applications easy to install.  My
involvement in Fedora is predicated on the idea that everything I do
as part of my involvement with this project makes it easier for people
to stop using proprietary applications.  I would strongly suggest that
you don't stand up proprietary applications as your primary argument
or use case for the technology.  If you want this considered seriously
by this community. Stand up a usage case which benefits open source
software and wok through that usage case.

> Second, this way of distribution will help open-source projects as well.
> It would make it really easy for them to distribute bleeding-edge
> versions of there apps that integrate well into the packaging system
> without having to package for each and every package manager.

If its that bleeding edge, should it tie in to the packaging system,
potentially causing problems for the distribution dependency
resolution?

Or should it be more like autopackage built as a secondary system?
Aren't you just re-inventing a new implementation for the problem that
autopackage has been attempting to solve for years now?  In fact I
think you should go back and look at autopackage and make a compare
and contrast between the APIs.  I know why I don't like autopackage.
it would be useful to know if I'm going to dislike your API for the
same reasons.

-jef


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]