You are not logged in.

#1 2005-03-27 22:49:12

cactus
Taco Eater
From: t͈̫̹ͨa͖͕͎̱͈ͨ͆ć̥̖̝o̫̫̼s͈̭̱̞͍̃!̰
Registered: 2004-05-25
Posts: 4,615
Website

Autopackage.

Notice this one a cursory trip to /. today.
http://bylands.dur.ac.uk/~mh/autopackage.org/index.html

Looks like a windows type installer for linux..almost.

Flash demo here: http://bylands.dur.ac.uk/~mh/autopackag … stall.html

note: the above links are a mirror..original site is here: http://www.autopackage.org/


"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." -- Postel's Law
"tacos" -- Cactus' Law
"t̥͍͎̪̪͗a̴̻̩͈͚ͨc̠o̩̙͈ͫͅs͙͎̙͊ ͔͇̫̜t͎̳̀a̜̞̗ͩc̗͍͚o̲̯̿s̖̣̤̙͌ ̖̜̈ț̰̫͓ạ̪͖̳c̲͎͕̰̯̃̈o͉ͅs̪ͪ ̜̻̖̜͕" -- -̖͚̫̙̓-̺̠͇ͤ̃ ̜̪̜ͯZ͔̗̭̞ͪA̝͈̙͖̩L͉̠̺͓G̙̞̦͖O̳̗͍

Offline

#2 2005-03-27 23:48:46

iBertus
Member
From: Greenville, NC
Registered: 2004-11-04
Posts: 2,228

Re: Autopackage.

I've seen this thing before but didn't look very hard at it until now. Look like it could be very *nifty* for people that like graphical installers. I have long advocated for a unified package system for all distros and this is close to what I was talking about. Since using Arch I've fallen in love with the quick and simple installation of packages using pacman. I don't see the need for complex GUI installers. But if I were a newbie to linux I'd probably expect a GUI.

Does anyone here have experience using this autopackage thing? I don't think pacman has to worry anytime soon but it would be cool if we could all finally get things working between distros. Of course, you still have to make thing compatible on a binary level.

Offline

#3 2005-03-28 00:25:48

cmp
Member
Registered: 2005-01-03
Posts: 350

Re: Autopackage.

I had a qucik look at thier documents: while the idea is nice curses/gtk/qt frontend, making packages seems to be a pain in the ass.
as far as I know you have to copy all file by hand to it's destination. Hell yeah I love makepkg wink

Offline

#4 2005-03-28 01:16:24

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Autopackage.

cmp wrote:

I had a qucik look at thier documents: while the idea is nice curses/gtk/qt frontend, making packages seems to be a pain in the ass.
as far as I know you have to copy all file by hand to it's destination. Hell yeah I love makepkg wink

hmmm, well in that case, makepkg could be made to create compatible packages

Offline

#5 2005-03-28 01:23:09

iphitus
Forum Fellow
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2004-10-09
Posts: 4,927

Re: Autopackage.

Ive used Autopackage installs of Inkscape, its kinda wierd, because Autopackage doesnt know/trust whats installed on your system, it downloads and installs the deps itself sorta into its own directory, so it had a directory with a second GTK2 install and stuff...

Offline

#6 2005-03-28 15:56:34

tgc
Member
From: DK
Registered: 2004-03-09
Posts: 96

Re: Autopackage.

Would it be possible to make a .autopackage :arrow: .pkg.tar.gz "converter"? It could be cool to have a smart bash or perl script to do it...

Offline

#7 2005-03-28 16:01:57

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Autopackage.

it might be kinda cool to strap this in with pacman - just to see if it'd work:
pacman will download and run the integrity checks and all that jazz, but the installation will simply run the autopackager...

hmmm, maybe it could be done using pre_install and post_install

Offline

#8 2005-03-28 16:13:53

tgc
Member
From: DK
Registered: 2004-03-09
Posts: 96

Re: Autopackage.

phrakture wrote:

pacman will download and run the integrity checks and all that jazz, but the installation will simply run the autopackager...

hmmm, maybe it could be done using pre_install and post_install

But if you do it that way, then you won't be able to make use of pacman dependency-resolver, pacman won't know what files you have installed, and you'll have 2 packages-management-system installed (which IMHO is bad). Therefore i rather do a convertion first, and then install...

Offline

#9 2005-03-28 16:20:37

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Autopackage.

yeah good point, though I was thinking more along the lines of a format which would be compatible with both... but I don't know

I'm just speculating really... pacman is great as it is, so no need to change it except for curiosity's sake

Offline

#10 2005-03-28 17:29:28

IceRAM
Member
From: Bucharest, Romania
Registered: 2004-03-04
Posts: 772
Website

Re: Autopackage.

tgc wrote:

Would it be possible to make a .autopackage :arrow: .pkg.tar.gz "converter"? It could be cool to have a smart bash or perl script to do it...

I did try this once with Filelight. One of the versions was released in an autopackage file only. It wasn't a converter, it was a full PKGBUILD that used as source an autopackage file.
There were some tricks into getting the tar.gz (or whatever archive) from the payload file, but once you did that, it was farily easy to COPY the files to the place you wanted them to be.
I don't think it worked, probably because of the missing libs (other dirs).. doh!

I think I'd rather see a front-end to pacman similar to the Autopackage frontends. The 1st step would be lib-idize pacman and 2nd - introduce an (icon="file") field in the PKGBUILD, pointing to an image file (png most likely) with the icon of the application (or add the img in the gensync db). The rest could be easily done (I think).

And yes, after I've played with that .payload file, I still think pacman is easier.

Offline

#11 2005-03-28 17:31:03

miqorz
Member
Registered: 2004-12-31
Posts: 475

Re: Autopackage.

Pfft. I think every distro should just switch to pacman. wink


http://wiki2.archlinux.org/

Read it. Love it. Live it. Or die.

Offline

#12 2005-03-28 17:41:22

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Autopackage.

miqorz wrote:

Pfft. I think every distro should just switch to pacman. wink

or pajman 8)

Offline

#13 2005-03-29 00:53:35

tgc
Member
From: DK
Registered: 2004-03-09
Posts: 96

Re: Autopackage.

Hi!

I couldn't help myself, I just had to make a converter, so I did. So if anyone is interested in converting autopackage into a pkg.tar.gz, get it here: http://gc-group.dk/auto2pkg.sh.gz. It works pretty well so far, and supports dependencies, which can be a bit annoying since autopackages and archlinux doesn't always have the same names for packages.
But anyway, I hope some of you finds it usefull  big_smile

Offline

#14 2005-04-08 14:29:14

mdk
Member
From: Helsinki/Finland
Registered: 2005-04-04
Posts: 26
Website

Re: Autopackage.

I just had a quick glance over autopackage, but it looks crappy. I agree with this post completely.


MDK
Open Source Software Operations/Nokia
michael.kostrzewa (at) nokia.com

Offline

#15 2005-04-08 16:58:27

Snowman
Developer/Forum Fellow
From: Montreal, Canada
Registered: 2004-08-20
Posts: 5,212

Re: Autopackage.

Debian and Gentoo are against using autopackage.  It has several flaws including that it only works for i686.

Offline

#16 2005-04-09 01:18:21

neotuli
Lazy Developer
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: 2004-07-06
Posts: 1,201
Website

Re: Autopackage.

Not to get anyone's spirits down or anything, but by all likelihood, a unified package system of ANY kind will never happen.
This is because A> It's a pain in the ass to get everything where each distro wants it exactly
B> A is only worsened by things like hard-coded paths in binaries
C> Everyone sees different things that are needed in their package managers, many times package manager designs reflect the overall goals and philosophies of the distro (like in arch), thus, no one will ever agree on it's design
D> I don't like the idea, so obviously it should not be :-P
E > This tool looks strictly gui-based to me... not everyone agrees with that either


The suggestion box only accepts patches.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB