| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ZagiFlyer
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 19 Apr 2002
Posts: 93
Location: San Jose, CA
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:11 am Post subject: Autopackage 1.0 released |
 |
|
Hey All,
I've been a Gentoo fan for a pretty long time (since 1.2 I think), and I know portage is fantastic. However, I'm curious how the advent of Autopackage will affect portage. How do Autopackage and portage differ? What are the limitations of Autopackage that portage has already answered?
I like portage, but Autopackage looks pretty damn cool. What do "all y'all" think?
(If you haven't seen Autopackage, look here: http://bylands.dur.ac.uk/~mh/autopackage.org/)
_________________
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"
--Ben Franklin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dj_choco
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 144
Location: North America
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:43 am Post subject: Autopackage: looks quite spiffy |
|
|
I like it (the looks/GUI).. 
testing now with Supertux... supertux-0.1.2.x86.package
 That is too sweet...
I had to make the *.package executable and choose /bin/bash as the app to open with, but then after the helper stuff is downloaded and installed, you can just install *.package/s
Installed as non-root to: ~/.local/bin/supertux
Contents of ~/.local/bin:
autopackage-frontend-gtk autopackage-launcher-gtk-nautilus-wrapper package
autopackage-launcher-gtk autopackage-manager-gtk supertux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bradenm
n00b
Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 26
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 3:58 pm Post subject: My thoughts |
|
|
For me, autopackage looks great but I haven't been able to try it as all of the .package files that I've seen have been compiled for x86 computers, and I'm on amd64. Hopefully, this will start to change. Being a Gentoo user, I also think it would be great if they could provide a way of providing src atuopackages that are not compiled or that include the source and are set up for compilation and installation in a manner similar to portage but all contained in the one file that is downloaded.
I must say, the project has made of lot of decisions that I like and has a lot of features I wish we had had for a long time (such as an easy way to install a package either in your home directory as a normal user or system wide). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZephyrXero
n00b
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 35
Location: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Autopackage is the project I've been dreaming of ever since I first installed Linux! I love Gentoo because portage makes installation so easy, but I hate how I have to rely on everything being in the portage tree. Some will disagree with this, but I think trying to put all your programs in a single repository is just a backwards way of running things. It's fine for low level/system apps, but if I want the newest version of Firefox, Gaim, Blender, etc... I shouldn't have to wait on my OS guys to add it. It should be in the hands of the developers. I really really really hope that Gentoo will go the extra mile to help the Autopackage guys make it and Portage work together well and play nice!!! I'd really like to just use portage for my low level/system/userland type programs, libraries, the kernel, X11, and my desktop environment; and then use something like Autopackage to handle all my higher level "3rd Party" apps. I beg you developers, please don't act like the Debian guys are and give Autopackage a fair shot!
_________________
Free electronic music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZephyrXero wrote: | | I beg you developers, please don't act like the Debian guys are and give Autopackage a fair shot! |
Autopackage is completely broken. On that issue, the Debian people are entirely right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZephyrXero
n00b
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 35
Location: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | ZephyrXero wrote: | | I beg you developers, please don't act like the Debian guys are and give Autopackage a fair shot! |
Autopackage is completely broken. On that issue, the Debian people are entirely right. |
Hmm...that's funny, I just installed Inkscape with Autopackage and it's running perfectly fine....strange.....doesn't feel broken.
_________________
Free electronic music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZephyrXero wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: | | ZephyrXero wrote: | | I beg you developers, please don't act like the Debian guys are and give Autopackage a fair shot! |
Autopackage is completely broken. On that issue, the Debian people are entirely right. |
Hmm...that's funny, I just installed Inkscape with Autopackage and it's running perfectly fine....strange.....doesn't feel broken. |
It didn't install into /usr/local (broken), it didn't correctly handle dynamic linking (broken), it didn't correctly handle dependencies (broken), you ran arbitrary shell code just to be able to view the contents of the package (broken), it didn't correctly handle optional nth-level deps (broken), it didn't correctly handle filesystem layout (broken), it only runs on x86 (broken), it can clobber arbitrary files (broken), it can remove arbitrary files on uninstall (broken) and it installs straight to the live fs (broken). That you can get away with installing things with it sometimes doesn't mean the technology is any good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZephyrXero
n00b
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 35
Location: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It didn't install into /usr/local (broken), it didn't correctly handle dynamic linking (broken), it didn't correctly handle dependencies (broken), it didn't correctly handle filesystem layout (broken), it can clobber arbitrary files (broken), it can remove arbitrary files on uninstall (broken) |
Well, if portage and autopackage were made to work together, this stuff wouldn't be a problem anymore... [See this article's comments]
If you guys would just give it a fair chance it might have a chance at succeeding (on Gentoo). Hence my begging and pleeding in earlier post...
_________________
Free electronic music
Last edited by ZephyrXero on Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZephyrXero wrote: | | Quote: | | It didn't install into /usr/local (broken), it didn't correctly handle dynamic linking (broken), it didn't correctly handle dependencies (broken), it didn't correctly handle filesystem layout (broken), it can clobber arbitrary files (broken), it can remove arbitrary files on uninstall (broken) |
Well, if portage and autopackage were made to work together, this stuff wouldn't be a problem anymore... [See this article's comments]
If you guys would just give it a fair chance it might have a chance at succeeding. Hence the begging and pleeding in earlier post... |
Eh? The whole 'design' is totally broken. If they were to reimplement the entire thing from scratch and do it properly then we'd reconsider. As it stands, it's so flawed there's no way we can get it fixed short of scrapping the whole thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZephyrXero
n00b
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 35
Location: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
And the design of relying on your Operating System developers for every program you ever want to install isn't broken? The "repository" system is holding Linux back from ever making it into the mainstream.
_________________
Free electronic music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZephyrXero wrote: | | And the design of relying on your Operating System developers for every program you ever want to install isn't broken? The "repository" system is holding Linux back from ever making it into the mainstream. |
Huh? You don't rely upon Gentoo at all. Quit the FUD, that's not how to get autopackage accepted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZephyrXero
n00b
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 35
Location: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
If it's not in the portage tree, we can't emerge it... where's the FUD in that? You want me to go and find some obscure "overlay" and add it into portage? How is that any more "safe" than autopackage? I'd rather just download my programs from their original developers. I like my OS and my programs seperate, that's why I quit using Winblows...
_________________
Free electronic music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZephyrXero wrote: | | If it's not in the portage tree, we can't emerge it... where's the FUD in that? You want me to go and find some obscure "overlay" and add it into portage? How is that any more "safe" than autopackage? I'd rather just download my programs from their original developers. I like my OS and my programs seperate, that's why I quit using Winblows... |
You shouldn't be installing autopackage-built binaries on Gentoo systems, since they're broken. Instead, you should get the source from upstream and build it correctly yourself, and install it that way into /usr/local. Alternatively, make an ebuild. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZephyrXero
n00b
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 35
Location: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do you just not get it? lol...... There are thousands of distros besides Gentoo. So, when my buddy running an Ubuntu system wants a program I can just make him an ebuild right? Until portage works with every single distro there is, it's just a proprietary package manager and worthless to anyone who doesn't use Gentoo. This mindset and elitest attitude has to end now if we ever want to make Linux something more than a hobbiest's operating system. I really hope there are more open minded developers out there... use a little foresight. The world is bigger than you are.
_________________
Free electronic music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZephyrXero wrote: | | Do you just not get it? lol...... There are thousands of distros besides Gentoo. So, when my buddy running an Ubuntu system wants a program I can just make him an ebuild right? Until portage works with every single distro there is, it's just a proprietary package manager and worthless to anyone who doesn't use Gentoo. This mindset and elitest attitude has to end now if we ever want to make Linux something more than a hobbiest's operating system. I really hope there are more open minded developers out there... use a little foresight. The world is bigger than you are. |
Eh? No, you give your Ubuntu friend a source tarball, the same way we've been doing for zillions of years. You can't sanely compile apps that'll run on an Ubuntu system on a Gentoo box, nor apps that'll run on a Gentoo system from an Ubuntu box because we use different core libraries and gcc versions. Are you going to static link everything? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hypnos
Advocate
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 2889
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Portage doesn't do some things right (e.g., transparent nth-level conditional dep handling), but Autopackage is very broken in a few very important respects:
* Poor handling of compile-time options -- power users will end up rolling their own packages, which is why I came to Gentoo. Ebuilds are easy to write, and Portage/Gentoo is a means to share your work with others; and, USE flags mitigate the need to write custom ebuilds.
* No sandboxing -- an unacceptable vulnerability. (OTOH, does Portage do collision detection? Blocks must be specified in *DEPEND.)
* Hackish solutions to binary incompatibilities. The Autopackage devs do have a point, that ABI stability is necessary for a smooth user experience, and something to which FOSS should aspire.
_________________
Personal overlay | Simple backup scheme |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hypnos wrote: | | * No sandboxing -- an unacceptable vulnerability. (OTOH, does Portage do collision detection? Blocks must be specified in *DEPEND.) |
Portage has optional collision detection as a FEATURES setting.
| Quote: | | * Hackish solutions to binary incompatibilities. The Autopackage devs do have a point, that ABI stability is necessary for a smooth user experience, and something to which FOSS should aspire. |
Naah, that's a duff argument. Per-setup builds are far cleaner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iTux
Guru
Joined: 07 Sep 2004
Posts: 586
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | ZephyrXero wrote: | | ciaranm wrote: | | ZephyrXero wrote: | | I beg you developers, please don't act like the Debian guys are and give Autopackage a fair shot! |
Autopackage is completely broken. On that issue, the Debian people are entirely right. |
Hmm...that's funny, I just installed Inkscape with Autopackage and it's running perfectly fine....strange.....doesn't feel broken. |
It didn't install into /usr/local (broken), it didn't correctly handle dynamic linking (broken), it didn't correctly handle dependencies (broken), you ran arbitrary shell code just to be able to view the contents of the package (broken), it didn't correctly handle optional nth-level deps (broken), it didn't correctly handle filesystem layout (broken), it only runs on x86 (broken), it can clobber arbitrary files (broken), it can remove arbitrary files on uninstall (broken) and it installs straight to the live fs (broken). That you can get away with installing things with it sometimes doesn't mean the technology is any good. |
Very interesting. And these problems are quite important...
When the news came up on Autopackage, I read info on the site and most info was trying to justify it... instead of saying what it actually do. The first thing I thought is that when you have to justify its role a lot, when maybe, it does not have much place in the world.
From my opinion, it seems to be like for people who wants to install stuff à la Windows on their x86... Also, I didn't quite get the point why it is x86-only if the goal they mention is to have the upstream build for everyone?
Installing in /usr is stupid. I am pretty sure commercial Unix apps not distributed by the distributor gets in /usr/local or /opt. In case of OS X, apps are self-contained in their own directory and they don't get installed in /usr...
As for Gentoo users and "getting newer version", this is useless. If you want to get the new version before tested, sometimes a simple:
cp package-{oldver,newver}.ebuild
ebuild package-newver.ebuild
emerge -av package
will work...
Gentoo has most things available in portage... should not be too difficult installing other apps since alls deps are probably already there...
iTux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hypnos
Advocate
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 2889
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | Portage has optional collision detection as a FEATURES setting. |
So it does -- thank you.
How are higher level conditional deps coming along? E.g., for package X to have some feature, its dep Y must be emerged with a specific USE flag or autodetected library (one example: gnome-db, and the DB glue libs it depends on). Right now there are nice eclass tools for detecting the lack of features, but you can only spit a warning or die.
| Quote: | | Naah, that's a duff argument. Per-setup builds are far cleaner. |
It's easier for package devs and distribution integrators, but not for users. The more often and trasparently things "magically work" for the user, the better -- this involves interacting with the user to know his wishes, and then implementing them transparently. So far, the only models I know of that have attained this are monolithic platform (e.g., Mac) and user-as-developer source-based (e.g., traditional Unix and Gentoo).
_________________
Personal overlay | Simple backup scheme |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hypnos wrote: | | How are higher level conditional deps coming along? E.g., for package X to have some feature, its dep Y must be emerged with a specific USE flag or autodetected library (one example: gnome-db, and the DB glue libs it depends on). Right now there are nice eclass tools for detecting the lack of features, but you can only spit a warning or die. |
Oh come on, that bug was only opened about three years ago, you don't expect our portage guys to be that fast do you?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Naah, that's a duff argument. Per-setup builds are far cleaner. |
It's easier for package devs and distribution integrators, but not for users. The more often and trasparently things "magically work" for the user, the better -- this involves interacting with the user to know his wishes, and then implementing them transparently. So far, the only models I know of that have attained this are monolithic platform (e.g., Mac) and user-as-developer source-based (e.g., traditional Unix and Gentoo). |
Magically work: 'emerge foo'. The only reason it works on the Mac is because they do a shitload of static linkage, which *really* eats your disc space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hypnos
Advocate
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 2889
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ciaranm wrote: | | Oh come on, that bug was only opened about three years ago, you don't expect our portage guys to be that fast do you? |
Perish the thought! 
| Quote: | | Magically work: 'emerge foo'. The only reason it works on the Mac is because they do a shitload of static linkage, which *really* eats your disc space. |
I do use Gentoo because things mostly magically work, and when I want to do something novel the extra work is incremental and easy to share. Unfortunately, compiling stuff, esp. C++ code, just takes too damn long.
Any of the following would help towards a binary-distribution magic kingdom:
* ABI stability
* runtime dependency resolution
* non-performance critical code runs in virtual machine (e.g., LLVM)
There's a place for static linking. Hard disk space is cheap, and the toolchain necessary in Gentoo to build apps ain't slim, either. Where static linking really kills is memory.
_________________
Personal overlay | Simple backup scheme |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6053
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
So I guess it is broken?
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikehearn
n00b
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ciaranm said:
| Quote: | | It didn't install into /usr/local (broken), it didn't correctly handle dynamic linking (broken), it didn't correctly handle dependencies (broken), you ran arbitrary shell code just to be able to view the contents of the package (broken), it didn't correctly handle optional nth-level deps (broken), it didn't correctly handle filesystem layout (broken), it only runs on x86 (broken), it can clobber arbitrary files (broken), it can remove arbitrary files on uninstall (broken) and it installs straight to the live fs (broken). That you can get away with installing things with it sometimes doesn't mean the technology is any good. |
However, these are (a) all opinions and (b) all misguided and based on incomplete knowledge of the facts. Let's see.
(1) We install to /usr/local because so many distros are broken with respect to this prefix. When a Mandrake developer, apparently more enlightened than you, asked how to fix it, I provided a list and he set about doing so. That means that once Mandrake is fixed, autopackage will install to /usr/local on that distribution. This is a problem entirely of your own making: if distros weren't so universally buggy, it would not have been necessary.
(2) It not only correctly handles dynamic linking, it actually extends it so ELF can support DSO level weak linkage, using relaytool. This is a feature ELF would not normally have as it only supports symbolic weak linkage (instead of at the dyntags level).
(3) It handles dependencies just fine, it checks for their presence and if a dep check fails, it will attempt to resolve it. At the moment it can't use portage to resolve dependencies. That's not some fundamental unarguable happening, simply put nobody wrote the code yet.
(4) You ran arbitrary shell code - unlike, say, portage which consists of running even larger amounts of shell code. Have you personally reviewed every line of the code in emerge? If you have, do you think many others have? If you want to view the contents of the package, you can read the stub which is only a very small amount of script to verify that it's not been hax0red first. As the contents of the package aren't meaningful to anything but the package scripts, not being able to do this automatically is a non-issue.
(5) It only runs on x86 because x86 users are by far the majority so they got support first. Adding support for other architectures has been partially completed, but before we can do it fully we need somebody to step up and support it on that architecture. Better ways of solving the problem have been researched: see the notes in the TODO list and mail archives on EiC and LLVM. The use of LLVM would mean that autopackages would become CPU architecture "neutral" as well as multi-distro, and the resulting binaries would be fully optimised for the target hardware, whether that's x86 or AMD64 or PowerPC[64]. As LLVM bytecode images are smaller than most native code images, and the LLVM optimisation engine can do optimisations that GCC currently cannot such as auto-vectorisation, this will have many other benefits for even x86 users as well.
(6) It can clobber arbitrary files - wrong. If you are overwriting an existing package any files will be backed up into the database and restored on uninstall. Upcoming versions check for pre-installed packages and will offer to uninstall them if they were installed via your package manager. If you are afraid of evil shell scripts see below.
(7) It can remove arbitrary files on uninstall - so what? The software you're running comes from upstream, if you don't trust them to write your packages why are you running their code at all? Remember that you can view uninstall scripts and logs using only "less".
(8) It installs straight to the live FS ..... like nearly every other package manager. This is only "broken" from your very unusual perspective. We've had zero requests to change this.
Basically you're looking for reasons to dislike it, having done apparently no research at all. Well done!
I don't find any of these reasons convincing, and I certainly don't find it more broken than attempting to package every program in the known universe into portage. That is not only broken by implementation but broken by design. Your fallback of "just send the source tarballs" is pathetic and weak - some of us want Linux to be easy to use so our friends and family can run it. Anything that involves compiling code on end user machines is therefore verboten. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikehearn
n00b
Joined: 04 Apr 2005
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
iTux said:
| Quote: | | When the news came up on Autopackage, I read info on the site and most info was trying to justify it... instead of saying what it actually do. The first thing I thought is that when you have to justify its role a lot, when maybe, it does not have much place in the world. |
This is necessary because some people are wed to the centralised distribution model. Autopackage isn't just a program, it's pushing for an change to the model where every distro tries to include every program - something that mathematically just cannot scale. So a significant part of our website is about justfying why the status quo is flawed and why distributed packaging is better.
As you can see from this thread, there are still deep misunderstandings about what autopackage is about and why it works the way it does.
| Quote: | | From my opinion, it seems to be like for people who wants to install stuff à la Windows on their x86... Also, I didn't quite get the point why it is x86-only if the goal they mention is to have the upstream build for everyone? |
There is some preliminary support for multiple architectures, but so far all the developers are using x86. Also we're moving away from the idea of having RPM style .i386.package, x86-64.package, .ppc.package files etc - this has poor usability and as soon as new architectures are introduced, you are back to having small numbers of people trying to recompile huge amounts of software. So an LLVM based model seems better, especially as it would result in fully optimised binaries for everyone as the final native ELF images are produced "just in time". Anybody could help implement this.
| Quote: | | Installing in /usr is stupid. I am pretty sure commercial Unix apps not distributed by the distributor gets in /usr/local or /opt. In case of OS X, apps are self-contained in their own directory and they don't get installed in /usr... |
However less stupid than not having working menu entries, file associations, icons or in some cases, binaries. If distros actually supported /usr/local as a first class citizen it would not be needed. See above for my previous reply.
| Quote: | | Gentoo has most things available in portage... should not be too difficult installing other apps since alls deps are probably already there... |
Most things? Compared to the universe of software that has been written throughout history, it has nearly nothing. I have also grave concerns about the quality of down-stream packaging. Several times now I've had to correct seriously wrong ebuilds even though I do not use Gentoo, simply because end users were coming to projects I am involved in (not autopackage) with "bugs" that turned out to be caused entirely by broken ebuilds. This is not unique to Gentoo. Debian has caused us similar grief in the past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ciaranm
Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 1719
Location: In Hiding
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mikehearn wrote: | | (1) We install to /usr/local because so many distros are broken with respect to this prefix. When a Mandrake developer, apparently more enlightened than you, asked how to fix it, I provided a list and he set about doing so. That means that once Mandrake is fixed, autopackage will install to /usr/local on that distribution. This is a problem entirely of your own making: if distros weren't so universally buggy, it would not have been necessary. |
Gentoo is not at all buggy in that respect. We handle /usr vs /usr/local entirely correctly. Autopackage does not because it attempts to work around screwups in other distributions that are not a problem in Gentoo.
| Quote: | | (2) It not only correctly handles dynamic linking, it actually extends it so ELF can support DSO level weak linkage, using relaytool. This is a feature ELF would not normally have as it only supports symbolic weak linkage (instead of at the dyntags level). |
Solving one dynamic linking issue is not solving every dynamic linking issue.
| Quote: | | (3) It handles dependencies just fine, it checks for their presence and if a dep check fails, it will attempt to resolve it. At the moment it can't use portage to resolve dependencies. That's not some fundamental unarguable happening, simply put nobody wrote the code yet. |
It tries to check for dependencies, may or may not get them right (and probably won't, since autopackage knows sod all about Gentoo), and any resolution it does leads to even more broken stuff being misinstalled.
| Quote: | | (4) You ran arbitrary shell code - unlike, say, portage which consists of running even larger amounts of shell code. Have you personally reviewed every line of the code in emerge? If you have, do you think many others have? If you want to view the contents of the package, you can read the stub which is only a very small amount of script to verify that it's not been hax0red first. As the contents of the package aren't meaningful to anything but the package scripts, not being able to do this automatically is a non-issue. |
Content from the tree is trusted. Content from upstream package distributors is not. You expect me to trust every monkey with a website who says they provide Linux software?
| Quote: | | (5) It only runs on x86 because x86 users are by far the majority so they got support first. Adding support for other architectures has been partially completed, but before we can do it fully we need somebody to step up and support it on that architecture. Better ways of solving the problem have been researched: see the notes in the TODO list and mail archives on EiC and LLVM. The use of LLVM would mean that autopackages would become CPU architecture "neutral" as well as multi-distro, and the resulting binaries would be fully optimised for the target hardware, whether that's x86 or AMD64 or PowerPC[64]. As LLVM bytecode images are smaller than most native code images, and the LLVM optimisation engine can do optimisations that GCC currently cannot such as auto-vectorisation, this will have many other benefits for even x86 users as well. |
No, it only runs on x86 because the design is so hideously bad that it needs arch specific code.
| Quote: | | (6) It can clobber arbitrary files - wrong. If you are overwriting an existing package any files will be backed up into the database and restored on uninstall. Upcoming versions check for pre-installed packages and will offer to uninstall them if they were installed via your package manager. If you are afraid of evil shell scripts see below. |
Exactly. So it clobbers arbitrary files. Such as, say, overwriting your webserver configuration file with something completely inaccurate. So what if you get a backup? It's still crapping all over your live filesystem.
| Quote: | | (7) It can remove arbitrary files on uninstall - so what? The software you're running comes from upstream, if you don't trust them to write your packages why are you running their code at all? Remember that you can view uninstall scripts and logs using only "less". |
Autopackage has no concept of shared ownership. So uninstalling can break other packages. Bad.
| Quote: | ( It installs straight to the live FS ..... like nearly every other package manager. This is only "broken" from your very unusual perspective. We've had zero requests to change this. |
Eh? No. Not like nearly every other package manager at all.
| Quote: | | Basically you're looking for reasons to dislike it, having done apparently no research at all. Well done! |
No, I've done the research, and I know a heck of a lot of reasons why autopackage is utterly broken.
| Quote: | | I don't find any of these reasons convincing, and I certainly don't find it more broken than attempting to package every program in the known universe into portage. That is not only broken by implementation but broken by design. Your fallback of "just send the source tarballs" is pathetic and weak - some of us want Linux to be easy to use so our friends and family can run it. Anything that involves compiling code on end user machines is therefore verboten. |
Eh? It's not even remotely broken, considering overlay. And anything that doesn't involve compiling code means everyone has to use exactly the same versions of everything built exactly the same way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Portage & Programming
