What is Digg?82 Comments
- SEJeff, on 01/19/2008, -1/+15Do you morons who can't actually read or comprehend this...
PackageKit is a PACKAGE MANAGER AGNOSTIC api and set of tools. If the Fedora guys port their gui tool piruit to PackageKit, you could use it in Ubuntu. If the Debian / Ubuntu guys port Synaptic to PackageKit, then you can use Synaptic on Fedora.
http://packagekit.org/pk-faq.html
PackageKit is an ABSTRACTION PEOPLE, not a package manager. - patcito, on 01/18/2008, -1/+15PackageKit is not a package manager, it's just a Dbus interface to various package managers so that they can be accessed with a uniform API from any gui or script with no overhead.
- DarkDx, on 01/18/2008, -1/+10Looking forward to this. Being compatible with Yum and Apt at the same time is a bonus.
- patcito, on 01/18/2008, -0/+8PackageKit *is NOT a package manager*, it's just a single API to talk to all the existent package managers which is great for people that write GUIs and scripts to interface with different package manager.
- negativefx, on 01/18/2008, -11/+19just what we need... yet another package manager. great.
- inactive, on 01/18/2008, -1/+9As a user of both OS X and Linux, I have to say that I love package management on Linux. Imagine Software Update having the ability to update every single app on your system (in other words, including third party apps) with a single command, instead of just Apple software? Apt is awesome.
- RyeBrye, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6Maybe one day I can install both, and then build another layer on top of them both to simplify the use of two hyper-package managers...
- init100, on 01/19/2008, -0/+5How does that produce dependency hell? That would just cause two versions of the same library to be installed.
- andyukguy, on 01/18/2008, -2/+7Smart (http://labix.org/smart) is trying to do something similar and is much further on in the development cycle.
- patcito, on 01/18/2008, -1/+6PackageKit *is NOT a package manager*, it's just a single API to talk to all the existent package managers which is great for people that write GUIs and scripts to interface with different package managers.
Right now, people need to write a different GUI for each package manager, this is a waste of time and a pain to deal with. With PackageKit, devs can write only one GUI or script that will talk to all package managers supported by PackageKit which is a good thing. So PackageKit is not a replacement for yum or apt or whatever, it's just here to help people. - RyeBrye, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5.dmg intalls have nothing to do with a package manager. The underlying nature of the application bundle makes Mac applications very easy to install. You just drag the app over - and it is installed... the bundle holds all of it's own dependencies inside of itself.
Yeah, it eats disk space if you have multiple copies of different libraries lying around... but I like to think my time is more valuable than my disk space. - ha1f, on 01/18/2008, -1/+6Real mature. Way to put out a good representation of the Linux user base as educated and open to criticism and comparison.
GTFO my Linux, fool. - ha1f, on 01/18/2008, -3/+8If it ain't as good as FreeBSD ports I don't want to hear it.
Fixed that for you. - sirhomer, on 01/19/2008, -0/+4"PackageKit is not a package manager, it's just a Dbus interface to various package managers so that they can be accessed with a uniform API from any gui or script with no overhead." -patcito
- Luminoth, on 01/18/2008, -1/+5Because that's not package management and you can already do it with any pre-compiled binary that comes with its dependencies packed in it.
- mossblaser, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4Neither of those two things are package managers. Neither of those two keep *all* your programs up to date, neither of those two offer a universal way of installing and removing programs, neither offer an efficient solution to dependency solving (think .net on windows or X11 on macos) and so on and so forth.
- geminitojanus, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Uh what? Apt was specifically designed NOT to get into this situation; you can install ten different versions of the same library next to each other and the system will still be usable. Case and point, anyone who's done software development probably has at least 3-4 versions of automake installed due to it's inconsistencies between versions.
- Kanna, on 01/18/2008, -7/+10I'll stick with portage, kthx.
- patcito, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3the package managers don't have to use DBus, packageKit is just a way to access various package managers with a single API using DBus. In other words, you can write a GUI to talk to PackageKit through DBus and PackageKit will talk to all the package managers that it supports and your GUI will work with all those package manager which is great, get it? Plus this way people can write script that manage there packages on fedora and the script will work the same on Ubuntu because it will pass by PackageKit, this is really great for admins.
- weizbox, on 01/18/2008, -2/+5portage ftw!
This doesn't look too bad for binary distros tho :) - inactive, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Couple of things:
- GNU/Linux, being a UNIX derivative, is made for multi-user environments. Different users could install different apps without redundancy. Those comparing the GNU/Linux manner of handling software to OS X or Windows should take that into consideration.
- I think that there can be peace between the camps who believe that GNU/Linux should be a platform for educated choice and those who believe that it should be normalized to facilitate ease of use. On the one hand, I think its important that GNU/Linux see widespread adoption on the desktop in order to combat our growing dependency on a few multi-nationals for access to the digital age. Due to competing influences in society, not everyone is capable of dedicating the time and energy to make educated choices about every aspect of their operating system (though they should, but we can't honestly expect as much). Thus, we need to normalize certain things across the GNU/Linux userland in order to accommodate for this.
However, the breadth of choice is one of the stronger suits of GNU/Linux, such that elimination of these choices could very well spell the end for the use of GNU/Linux as a political platform. So I think what's necessary is that we draw the line where exactly accommodation for the common user should end. Its a difficult question, but which I think should mulled over before responding with either a yay or nay to the idea of PackageKit. If we can do this, we can have peace. - AceofSpades19, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3I don't see how windows and mac style point and click installations are any better then pointing and click installation in a package manager
- element247, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Seconded.
- muep, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2PackageKit does nothing to enable installation of a .deb on a system that uses RPM.
- mysticmatrix, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2"and create a system that can compete with Windows and Mac"
..Now from when did that became true?? Overall recoping of libraries and hunting internet and CD's is better than apt-get :-O - sirhomer, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Reading comprehension skills are pretty bad these days among the average Joe. Watch the movie Idiocracy and surf Digg and tell me the movie isn't coming true.
- Vektuz, on 01/19/2008, -1/+3From the screenshots, it seems like its already too complex.
Filter? What? Development? what? groups? Depends on required by what who?
I assume that UI that they are showing is simply the developer's UI. The actual user friendly UI will be more like the Add/Remove programs in Ubuntu, I hope. - ha1f, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Agreed. I'm a douche bag.
(I dugg your comment up) - schotty, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Wrong dude. You get Red Hat and SuSE RPMS, a Debian DEB, and a tarball with install scripts. This is how its been done for a long time.
- spydon, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2"PackageKit aims to take the pain out of the package management on GNU/Linux systems and create a system that can compete with Windows and Mac"
Like windows have a good packagemanager... - maybeway36, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2If Linux is going to make it big time, binary software sold in stores on CD/DVD needs to be able to run on Linux. The developers will probably want it to run on all Linux systems, not just the rpm ones or the deb ones. This will make it easier for commercial software developers to make Linux software, which will lead to greater support for GNU/Linux systems among corporations.
http://ianmurdock.com/2006/12/15/software-installa ... - SleighBoy, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Thirds on Portage
- bppojk, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2i have to ask.... Does it work on Slackware?!?!?!?!?!
- Luminoth, on 01/18/2008, -3/+5What you're saying, moron (since we're apparently in the business of catty name calling here), is that if I pack up my app in a tarball and tell you to unpack it, we have a package management system. I'm guessing you've never built or used a .app on a Mac.
- ha1f, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2Okay, you're a moron.
Where did I say we should do away with package managers? Do you not understand the concept of the package manager? It delivers software directly to the machine, software that is compiled (likely) specifically for that distribution. Don't you ever wonder why getting games to Linux would be such a pain in the ass? Do you really think developers want to build their games 100's of times for the different distributions? Your comment makes it apparent to me that you have no insight besides what you read on the some Ubuntu user's blog. Here's a better idea, how about if you stay away from Linux until you gain the ability to make useful observations on your own. Some of us are trying to move Linux forward, please, move out of the way. - baalzebub, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1you would be better off building your own package with makepkg after compiling the source...
what i do is make a directory in /tmp = mkdir /tmp/pkg
build your software from source as usual then when it comes to run make install use DESTDIR
make install DESTDIR=/tmp/pkg
cd /tmp/pkg
makepkg /tmp/pkg/my_package.tgz
installpkg /tmp/pkg/my_package.tgz
then move my_package.tgz somewhere safe like to a USB memory stick for safe keeping and delete the contents of the directory you created earlier (you want an empty /tmp/pkg for the next package you build)...
Happy_Trails :) - bruenig, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1I like pacman, it is cli only. I take it over anything else on any other operating system personally. Developing games doesn't require packaging games. It isn't hard. Just release it in a tarball, with a little install script or as a firefox like compiled binary that just drops itself into /opt. Really simple.
- inactive, on 01/18/2008, -7/+8you stupid ***** Linux package manager are way head of msi & dmgs.
- brettalton, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1As SEJeff said, it will be integrated with Ubuntu's package managers. PackageKit is not a package manager in itself, it is an abstraction to allow universal independence of packages across (hopefully) all Linux distros.
- RaulMuadDib, on 04/03/2009, -0/+1slackbuilds.org
- thtroyer, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2This obviously isn't meant to compete with the likes of portage.
- bruenig, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2apt has too many flaws. For near flawless binary package management, see pacman.
- CoolGoose, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1If you read the article you will see that packagekit isn't trying to be something like smart. it will just be a layer something like kde's photon is for audio
- schotty, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Well the new version of the Loki Installer is being worked on rather heavily and will remove that as being a problem.
- Darkhacker, on 01/20/2008, -0/+1I don't know much about package management so take what I say with a grain of salt, but from what I've heard, the way APT is built, makes downgrading nearly impossible. It's designed for an upgrade-only path. If that's changed at all recently, someone please correct me, but I still think that's the case today.
- wiresjr, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Makes perfect sense to me. Either a user has update permissions (so the cron job works) or they don't, and it fails. What's the problem?
Also most 'automatic' update systems generally let the user decide when they get run. Oh, and your last line makes no sense. KTB - MWeather, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2"At the same time, a universal standard or package _would_ be beneficial to people who aren't as technically apt as others."
You mean like POSIX and Linux Standard Base? - Luminoth, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2I came in here telling you the choice was a strength, you call me a moron and then agree with me? What is wrong with you.
- RyeBrye, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1It doesn't manage packages. So... it has nothing to do with packages... you can run it without dragging and dropping it.
- inactive, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1if this can use apt and yum, i don't see why it couldn't hook into portage as well...
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is