Installing autopackage

Asked 1 year, 11 months ago. Active 1 year, 11 months ago. Viewed times. Improve this question. Andor Kiss Andor Kiss 1 1 gold badge 4 4 silver badges 15 15 bronze badges.

Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. In Ubuntu Improve this answer. What I'd like to do is install this autopackage: lacie.

Nevermind, someone fixed the missing dependencies for the autopackage. AndorKiss If this answered your question, you can mark this answer as accepted by clicking the gray check mark beside the answer to change its color to green. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook. Read more. Free Software Foundation! From Free Software Directory. Jump to: navigation , search. Licensing License. Verified by. Verified on. Hidden category: Entry. I think the rationale behind the project has been explained clearly enough time and time again.

What's more, often it's end users asking for this distro support, not us. Shouldn't what end users want be a pretty big hint? People are supposed to report bugs to us or to the upstream developers.

But the fact is, distros can't package everything. If you look at Linux forums you'll see that pe. And you can't see why?

Proprietary software is a security nightmare because if you can't see the sources then you can't be sure of what the binaries are doing. If even mention Gimp, you'll be instantly flamed down by thousands of Slashdotters who say Gimp is nowhere near being able to take on Photoshop. Or how about things like Flash? Or the NVidia drivers? No good open source alternatives. Score: 4 , Informative. They don't like us because they want to centralize software packaging.

Don't just blindly assume we're evil just because they're critical to us. Read what they write. For example: "To even unpack the package, you must run arbitrary code supplied by an untrusted source.

Is the upstream developer an untrusted source? If he cannot be trusted, then why would one trust third party Gentoo packages?

How hard is that? Bug reports please, because we sure haven't received any from our users. It's a bit hard to support PPC if we don't have such a machine, right? We already have some stuff in place to make sure x86 packages aren't executed on other architectures. But that aside: let us go back to the original problem: software installation isn't easy enough for the average user.

Now there's the main reason why we focus on x because that's where our target group are! The software installation problem is pretty much unique to x86 Linux. Non-x86 architectures are usually servers, not desktops.

They don't need autopackage, so why should we worry about them? As for joey's blog: the only thing he's complaining about is that at the moment you cannot programmatically extract files from a. Average users don't even care about that! They just want the damn software to be installed and to work! Yeah I haven't replied to everything but you get the point. Score: 4 , Insightful. Untrusted source? Score: 3 , Interesting. Do distributions deal with that? So far I haven't seen any distribution who cares about being able to run their binaries on other distributions, or vice-versa.

If you know one please let me know and I'll applaud them. Then you haven't checked hard enough. See the --prefix option; combine with --nodeps if you want to skip duplicating the system db. See the --noscripts option.

You're assuming there's no complexity difference between 1 dependency and - but this defies common sense and actual experience. If the "complete solution" were so great, how comes there are so many articles and posts from people wishing for MacOS type software management on Linux?

A Regression, Not a Solution Score: 1. Autopackage's goal is not to surpass current packaging systems in every way possible. Let us go back to defining the problem. The problem is: software. Rephrased, "why think for myself when other people can tell me what to think instead".

If a random guy from the street tells me my house is a fire accident waiting to happen, I might be curious and ask for reasons or just say "I don't think so" and ignore him. The fire marshal is specialized in extinguishing fires.

They are not specialized in other areas. You still shouldn't let them do the thinking for you. Autopackage is used by high-profile projects like AbiWord, Inkscape and Gaim. Upstream trusts us.

What do you think that means? Re:If it's anything like automake Come on. Autopackage has got as much to do with automake as Bill Clinton with Bill Gates. Haven't we debunked this before? Score: 5 , Interesting. When a package is removed, its dependencies remain. Hearn and Lai point out that dependencies are not always removed by some other package management systems, either.

Re:Haven't we debunked this before? If not, well, that's so horribly broken that I don't even want to get strarted with it. FHS anyone? I don't really understand what you mean. But we detect dependencies in the same way like. How can you correctly map between the name of the autopackage, and the local package manager's name for a package? We don't; we do a reverse lookup. Upon installing a file, we check whether that file is already owned by a native package. Also the security concerns are addressed this way.

I really don't see why this isn't the default way to do autopackage. What is the problem? It's not a problem for me to always have it do this. I just though it might be better to have this be the default behaviour. Also, maybe autopackage has been updated since I last used it, but I was. The reason why we allow root installs is because there are people who want to install software system-wide.

All the complaints seem to come from power users who don't like the idea of a new packaging format. The inexperienced Linux users seem to love us, as can be seen from. Are you using Ubuntu? Yes, but Score: 2 , Funny.

Biting off more than one can chew? If you don't mind keeping it separate, why not go with pkgsrc? It mostly works and it's available today. Old Autopackage story, bleeding edge installs Score: 2.