µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

Peasantoid · 2009-05-02 22:29:50

I was recently looking at the documentation for Arch packages and thought "Holy crap, that looks like a pain!". Especially for something really small, like a brainf*** interpreter. So what did I do? I took it upon myself to create my own packaging utility and file format, of course!

µpkg is written entirely in bash and is fairly small, about 115 lines total (although expect that number to increase as I implement more functionality).

Also, a note on versioning. I'm not going to use the decimal/point system, but a revision-based one. So much cleaner, not to mention easier to type.

Format
Packages are [optionally compressed] tarballs that contain a number of scripts and some files (duh). They're laid out like so:
* pre-install: Executed before installing.
* post-install: Executed after installing.
* pre-uninstall: Executed before uninstalling.
* post-uninstall: Executed after uninstalling.
* files/: A directory containing files, located such that they will be in the corresponding places in the root filesystem once installed.

Sample Packages
* sudo 1.7.1 x64
* bfutils x64 — Brainf***-related utilities.
To install, simply run "upkg install <package>" as root.

Downloads
* µpkg 1 — First release.
* µpkg 2 — Adds removal functionality. Improvements to internal library.
* µpkg 3 — Library fixed due to bugs.
* µpkg 4 — Now runs appropriate scripts when uninstalling.
Decompress the tarball and run the included installation script.

Obligatory Disclaimer
I cannot be held responsible if µpkg s**ts all over your system.

To Do
* Add package removal capabilities. [DONE]
* Maybe add package management (possibly as separate utility).

Last edited by Peasantoid (2009-05-03 03:24:06)

Heller_Barde · 2009-05-02 23:21:55

I congratulate you on tackling the tall task of a package manager.
furthermore, no offense intended, what i don't see is the need for it.

but it's cool that you share your efforts with us

cheerio
Barde

Peasantoid · 2009-05-02 23:51:00

Heller_Barde wrote:

I congratulate you on tackling the tall task of a package manager.
furthermore, no offense intended, what i don't see is the need for it.

Okay, two things:
1) µpkg is not a package manager. Package managers (at least every one I've heard of) download packages from repositories, figure out dependencies, and other stuff. All this thing does is install [and later, remove] them. The user has to manually download the package. Also, I hate having dependencies rammed down my throat.
2) Need? Who said there has to be a need in order to make something? Did Linus Torvalds "need" Linux? Hell no! I'm a hacker; I do things for fun.

Heller_Barde wrote:

but it's cool that you share your efforts with us

Thanks.

Last edited by Peasantoid (2009-05-02 23:51:42)

Xyne · 2009-05-03 00:02:18

Peasantoid wrote:

I was recently looking at the documentation for Arch packages and thought "Holy crap, that looks like a pain!".

In what way?

Anyway, although I don't see much use for this myself, I agree with you that sometimes it's fun to code just for the sake of coding and see where it takes you.

Peasantoid · 2009-05-03 00:52:57

Xyne wrote:

Peasantoid wrote:
I was recently looking at the documentation for Arch packages and thought "Holy crap, that looks like a pain!".
In what way?

* PKGBUILDs. This seems like a redundant step. Why do it when you can just copy a few files into a directory and `tar cvf` it all into a completely valid package? Why distribute a file that tells the user how to make a package themselves, rather than just give them the package itself?
* Platform specificity. µpkg doesn't have any ties with Arch (pacman, makepkg, and so on), so it's more or less cross-platform — it'll work with any distro, the BSDs, and even OS X. (But not Windows, obviously.)

Other than those two points, Arch packages are better for large projects that have dependencies. µpkg would seem to be better for distributing small, standalone pieces of software.

Zariel · 2009-05-03 00:57:17

Because pacman does so much more than just blidnly install/remove packages? I agree with what Xyne said.

Last edited by Zariel (2009-05-03 00:59:37)

Peasantoid · 2009-05-03 01:03:44

Like I said, it seems like overkill to create an Arch package with all the metadata, dependencies, and so on if you're just distributing something small. Anyway, I never claimed µpkg would be useful.

Also: µpkg does not "blindly" install packages. It takes great pains not to clobber anything.

Last edited by Peasantoid (2009-05-03 01:44:50)

Xyne · 2009-05-03 01:54:10

Sorry but I completely disagree. A proper PKGBUILD will only contain relevant data. If a package has no dependencies or optional dependencies, then those arrays are not included in the PKGBUILD. A PKGBUILD for a minimal package is itself minimal. If it does have dependencies, I don't see why you would not want to install them. What's the point of installing something that won't work? If a standard package has been built against deps that you don't need (as was vim in my case... I don't use ruby), you can just remove it.

It just makes more sense to me to not install a bunch of small packages on your system without tracking them centrally.

Again, I'm not trying to discourage you from continuing with this, I just disagree with your reasoning.

Last edited by Xyne (2009-05-03 02:39:16)

Peasantoid · 2009-05-03 02:00:42

Well, I didn't look over the packaging documentation in detail (just saw a lot of instructions), so yeah, I probably missed something there.
But anyway. Even if µpkg isn't particularly useful, it was (and still is) fun to write.

Speaking of which... I've released revision 2, which includes removal functionality. If you installed the previous one, just run this one's installation script as normal to upgrade it.

Also: Had to re-upload the sudo package in order to correct a naming error with /etc/sudoers.

Last edited by Peasantoid (2009-05-03 02:01:22)

mikesd · 2009-05-03 02:03:48

Interesting idea! Like others have said I don't really have a use for this myself but that is irrelevant. If you are having fun and find the utility useful others might too. If not, it's all good coding experience. Keep working on it.

Peasantoid wrote:

Like I said, it seems like overkill to create an Arch package with all the metadata, dependencies, and so on if you're just distributing something small.

Personally I like Arch's PKGBUILDS. Arch is the first distro where I made up or edited the existing packages. It's just so easy. I never looked into making my own packages when running Gentoo though I don't know why. Arch's PKGBUILDS just sort of sneak up on you. At first you just use pacman, then you find something in AUR and you install ABS, then you are rebuilding packages in the repos to customize them for yourself and before you know it you are making your own package builds.

Peasantoid wrote:

Platform specificity. µpkg doesn't have any ties with Arch (pacman, makepkg, and so on), so it's more or less cross-platform — it'll work with any distro, the BSDs, and even OS X. (But not Windows, obviously.)

This would be an interesting nut to crack. Things like autopackage have been less than successful as far as I know. If someone came up with a cross platform package format that was accepted by the OSS comunity and actually used that would be cool.

Last edited by mikesd (2009-05-03 02:04:31)

Peasantoid · 2009-05-03 02:08:44

Hmm, I've never heard of autopackage. Could you explain?

Stythys · 2009-05-03 02:15:26

Peasantoid wrote:

...All this thing does is install [and later, remove] them. The user has to manually download the package. Also, I hate having dependencies rammed down my throat.

so...this is identical to 'pacman -U'?

I really do not see the point of developing a second package manager for arch...

mikesd · 2009-05-03 02:17:58

Peasantoid wrote:

Hmm, I've never heard of autopackage. Could you explain?

Unfortunately that is not surprising. Check it out here.

Peasantoid · 2009-05-03 02:19:39

Stythys wrote:

Peasantoid wrote:
...All this thing does is install [and later, remove] them. The user has to manually download the package. Also, I hate having dependencies rammed down my throat.
so...this is identical to 'pacman -U'?
I really do not see the point of developing a second package manager for arch...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_management_system
µpkg is NOT a package manager. It doesn't manage packages.

No, it is not identical to `pacman -U`. Please read more carefully...?

Edit: Added quote to eliminate ambiguity.

Last edited by Peasantoid (2009-05-03 02:21:38)

Peasantoid · 2009-05-03 02:41:30

Releasing revision 3. Apparently, the -a and -e flags have different meanings in [ ... ].

The whole thing sorta flaked out...

Last edited by Peasantoid (2009-05-03 02:45:18)

Peasantoid · 2009-05-03 03:26:07

Releasing revision 4. I forgot to make the uninstallation thing run its scripts.
Also adding a new package called "bfutils". It's a bunch of brainf*** utilities.

toad · 2009-05-03 07:39:37

How would I pronounce µpkg?

Xyne · 2009-05-03 09:02:27

On a tangent, I wonder what the forum policy is concerning brainfuck. It's the proper name of the language so I wonder if you really need to self-censor. How many internet/Arch users would really be bothered by it?

Anonymo · 2009-05-03 14:21:51

Seems a lot like this project is heading towards:

http://www.slackware.com/config/packages.php

Last edited by Anonymo (2009-05-03 14:22:22)

Peasantoid · 2009-05-03 15:42:57

Xyne wrote:

On a tangent, I wonder what the forum policy is concerning brainfuck. It's the proper name of the language so I wonder if you really need to self-censor. How many internet/Arch users would really be bothered by it?

Well, I don't know, but I'd rather play it safe than get banned.

toad wrote:

How would I pronounce µpkg?

µ is the lowercase form of the Greek letter Mu. In English, it's often used to mean "micro", so I guess you'd say "micropackage". (?)

Anonymo wrote:

Seems a lot like this project is heading towards:
http://www.slackware.com/config/packages.php

Perhaps. However, once I get all [or most] of the bugs in µpkg worked out, I plan to build a full-blown package manager called µman on top of it.

Last edited by Peasantoid (2009-05-03 15:47:32)

cactus · 2009-05-03 17:15:45

Peasantoid wrote:

µpkg is NOT a package manager. It doesn't manage packages.

huh? It installs and removes 'packages'. Sounds like a package manager to me!

No, it is not identical to `pacman -U`. Please read more carefully...?

Didn't you say you didn't even look at the documentation/man-pages for pacman?

this thread is kind of funny.

that aside, coding for no reason is fun. I have reinvented many a wheel in my time.
*wistful*

have fun with your project.

Peasantoid · 2009-05-03 17:54:40

cactus wrote:

Peasantoid wrote:
µpkg is NOT a package manager. It doesn't manage packages.
huh? It installs and removes 'packages'. Sounds like a package manager to me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/Package_management_system

A package management system is a collection of tools to automate the process of installing, upgrading, configuring, and removing software packages from a computer.
[...]
Packages are distributions of software and metadata such as the software's full name, description of its purpose, version number, vendor, checksum, and a list of dependencies necessary for the software to run properly. Upon installation, metadata is stored in a local package database.

...not a package manager.

cactus wrote:

Didn't you say you didn't even look at the documentation/man-pages for pacman?

No, I said I didn't look over them in detail. There are a lot of instructions to follow when creating an Arch package. Not so for these.

Last edited by Peasantoid (2009-05-03 17:54:52)

flamelab · 2009-05-03 20:24:16

toad wrote:

How would I pronounce µpkg?

Τhe word "μ" in Greek is pronounced "mi" (mee, like in "bee") if it's ... alone.

moljac024 · 2009-05-03 20:34:44

I guess it's micro pkg

Peasantoid · 2009-05-03 23:19:04

I've decided to make µpkg more package-manager—esque. Changes will include metadata, saving a [sort of] database of installed packages, dependencies, conflicts, versioning, and so on.
Next release will contain these features.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-05-02 22:29:50

µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#2 2009-05-02 23:21:55

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#3 2009-05-02 23:51:00

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#4 2009-05-03 00:02:18

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#5 2009-05-03 00:52:57

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#6 2009-05-03 00:57:17

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#7 2009-05-03 01:03:44

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#8 2009-05-03 01:54:10

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#9 2009-05-03 02:00:42

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#10 2009-05-03 02:03:48

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#11 2009-05-03 02:08:44

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#12 2009-05-03 02:15:26

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#13 2009-05-03 02:17:58

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#14 2009-05-03 02:19:39

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#15 2009-05-03 02:41:30

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#16 2009-05-03 03:26:07

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#17 2009-05-03 07:39:37

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#18 2009-05-03 09:02:27

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#19 2009-05-03 14:21:51

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#20 2009-05-03 15:42:57

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#21 2009-05-03 17:15:45

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#22 2009-05-03 17:54:40

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#23 2009-05-03 20:24:16

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#24 2009-05-03 20:34:44

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

#25 2009-05-03 23:19:04

Re: µpkg: Very simple package installer/remover

Board footer