Re: Simplifying package installation.

[Victor Bogado da Silva Lins <bogadofuture openlink com br>]

Derek Simkowiak wrote:
> 
> > >     This rocks.  Great idea!  If none of the recognized package
> > > systems is installed, the installer can default it to a .tar.gz and
> > > install it wherever the user wants (and has permission to).
> >
> > Is that libc5, libc6, gnome in /opt, do they have the other bits you
> > need ?
> >
> > tar.gz doesnt even have signatures.
> [...]
> > I think you've missed 40 or 50 major ones before that. Like authentication,
> > dependancies, platform, OS, ..
> 
>         I agree: falling back to .tar.gz means there is no package
> management at all.
> 
>         The goal was to use the "native" package management system for the
> O.S. that the application was being installed on.  So if I'm on a Redhat
> system, I can uninstall gnumeric with a command like "rpm -ev gnumeric",
> and Gnome applications would show up in my app database along with all the
> other non-Gnome apps.
> 
>         But if the O.S. does not have a package management
> system/database, should Gnome be required to provide one for it?  That is,
> if the system does not provide a package management system that has
> authentication, dependencies, etc. should Gnome be required to have a
> package manage system of its own to fall back on?  Something other than
> .tar.gz?
> 
>         More to the point: should the package management system be part
> of Gnome or part of the O.S.?
> 
>         Since people will install applications other than just Gnome
> applications, I would say the package management should be part of the
> O.S., not part of Gnome.
> 
>         If some crappy-ass Unix variant doesn't have a package database
> that provides all the features of an RPM or DEB system, and the "Gnome
> Installer" falls back to .tar.gz as a last resort, then that is the fault
> of the O.S., not the fault of Gnome.  I still think .tar.gz is a good
> fallback.

	I think that gnome could implement a gnome-package management. This GPM
would be able to register programs/files with the base OS via a CORBA
object.

	I see it this way :

	gnumeric.gpm --> gnome package manager --> corba interface--> rpm  (Red
hat)

	gnumeric.gpm --> gnome package manager --> corba inteface --> deb 
(debian)

	When I try to uninstall I would use the usual way of uninstall or use a
gnome interface to it.

	I don't know RPM or debian packages in deep, but I imagine that both
keep basicly the same info in their package dbs. So the GPM would just
have to be able to store/retrieve this information from the local
package manager via a corba object.

	And the GPM could have a generic package management corba object so
that in systems that don't have a package management could still install
GPM files.

	Advantages I see: 

	- The local package management is invisible from the end user.

	- GPM packages would be installed in any package management suported,
this means that it would be able to use only one type of package for
gnome apps.

	Please comment. :-)

-- 
"You take the red pill and you stay in wonderland,
and I'll show you how deep the rabit hole goes", Morpheus.
 
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins