[cldp] Re: news

  • From: "Benjamin Rich" <benjamin.rich@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cldp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:14:15 +1000


> Anyways, about autopackage:  it's the closest thing to Linux has to a usable,
> distribution-neutral software distribution mechanism.
> In fact, it's in use right now by the following projects:
> - Gaim
> - Inkscape
> - Abiword
> - Gimp

Me too, got it for gimp and gaim.

> I think Autopackage or something like it is the wave of the Linux future,
> frankly.


> However, just the mention of the word "autopackage" gives some people brain
> tumors.   I think we should refrain from any mentioning of it.
> However, I think BrickLayer can still have some "meat" to it without endorsing
> a specific packaging format, which will please no one.  Perhaps BrickLayer
> could be more of a framework so that EVERY package format could use it...
> So, in summary, I feel we should refrain (at least for now) from endorsing any
> specific package format to gain as broad an acceptance as possible.

Having looked into how easy it's going to be to make a packaging layer
like bricklayer, I am thinking of scrapping it. I might just try and
make a genuine platform standard - the LDBK - and forget the rest.
Then, we can either have people 'apt-get install ldbk' as mike
suggested, or we can have a platform that a distribution must conform
to, to make it usable for ISVs'. Writing an API to package-gathering
just won't work, I think, much as I'd like it to - things are just too
non-standard for too many essential packages, like python, X, etc.


> --
> Karl Pietrzak
> kap4020@xxxxxxx

Other related posts: