Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 18, 2007 08:19 PM
In the article it says: "One possible solution is to encourage a new common package system for all distributions, such as autopackage."
This could be read as if Autopackage was created as a potential replacement for systems such as RPM and DEP. It wasn't. In the Autopackage FAQ, it says:"
# Is autopackage meant to replace RPM?
No. RPM is good at managing the core software of a distro. [...] What RPM is not good at is non-core packages, ie programs available from the net, from commercial vendors, magazine coverdisks and so on."
It's a joke that distributions will now get not only one additonal package format but -- due to API -- several of them. Every third-party application is going to use either its own installer or one of the other systems such as Autopackage, Klik or Bitrock.
And users are going to be really happy about the additional confusion. However, it will at least be reduced to understand that one needs to make any downloaded software package executable before it self-installs. Oh! Noticed something?
The Linux distributions decided to ignore user problems because they didn't want to give up control. It's a shame that they will probably blame installers in general if there'll be a mess. However, it's their own fault that they didn't establish a single (additional) system in time.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Small clarification
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 18, 2007 08:19 PMThis could be read as if Autopackage was created as a potential replacement for systems such as RPM and DEP. It wasn't. In the Autopackage FAQ, it says:"
# Is autopackage meant to replace RPM?
No. RPM is good at managing the core software of a distro. [...] What RPM is not good at is non-core packages, ie programs available from the net, from commercial vendors, magazine coverdisks and so on."
It's a joke that distributions will now get not only one additonal package format but -- due to API -- several of them. Every third-party application is going to use either its own installer or one of the other systems such as Autopackage, Klik or Bitrock.
And users are going to be really happy about the additional confusion. However, it will at least be reduced to understand that one needs to make any downloaded software package executable before it self-installs. Oh! Noticed something?
The Linux distributions decided to ignore user problems because they didn't want to give up control. It's a shame that they will probably blame installers in general if there'll be a mess. However, it's their own fault that they didn't establish a single (additional) system in time.
#