macgeek.freeflux.net — The new package format in Mac OS X 10.5 has been implemented by Apple.The archive format they chose is XAR.Seems they made the decision a few months ago, but it's finally implemented in the last seed to developers.
Dec 30, 2006 View in Crawl 4
raynevandunemDec 31, 2006
In relation to what evilic0n said, I've long been curious about how Mac OS X differs from other Unix-like systems, such as Debian and Fedora, in its treatment of application formats.The vast majority of Linux distros makes their desktop applications, such as Firefox and Amarok, available only as packages. However, Mac OS X makes their applications available in both packages and disc images, with the former being used only for applications which interface directly with the system's internals (such as Internet Explorer for Mac).The only Linux system which has been likened to Mac OS X's treatment of application is GoboLinux, particularly because it allows for installing packages without compilation by dragging-dropping them into their own folders.However, as GoboLinux's approach and intent is different from that of Mac OS X, the only other Linux system or desktop environment that compares to Mac OS X in its treatment of application installation formats: ROX Desktop.My question is: how is it that Mac OS X can reconcile packages with disc images?I mean, what exactly are disc images, and are there any true equivalents to disc images in the Desktop Linux world?Are disc images even packages?
elevenDec 31, 2006
Disk Images are disk images. Much like ISOs.Packages are packages. Packages are installer "documents" that launch the installer program and prompt you to install their contents.Disk images can contain packages or any other file types. They mount like real disks.
jeriqoDec 31, 2006
Like you will even notice...
raynevandunemDec 31, 2006
..."that's how most LiveCD's work for instance; by mounting a compressed disk image on the CD alongside a memory backed mount or 4"<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloop">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloop</a>That was designed explicitly for LiveCDs, and is cited within the article as being similar to the .dmg format."tarballs are the defacto standard Unix wise and tend to have decent desktop integration (e.g. KDE's KIO slaves make them available as a virtual filesystem through Konquerer and other KDE-supporting apps)."I *strongly* dispute that.Why is it that tarballs have to be compiled into distro-specific packages before being offered to the public to download and install?I mean, whenever a tarball is offered by some Sourceforge project for download and installation, the first thought that comes to mind is "oh, man! I can't use it because it hasn't been packaged for Ubuntu yet!" One example: Firefox 1.5 circa Breezy Badger, which took forever for the Ubuntu maintainers to include by default. The "noobs" on Ubuntuforums.org were nagging them 24:7 over that (not to mention the local Autopackage advocate).Plus, most open-source (and closed-source) software makers throw out tarballs to the Linux crowd (with their 300+ distributions) like bones to dogs. It's like they don't even expect you to know what to do with it unless you're command-line proficient (and possibly a distro maintainer).And when they are packaged, what are you going to do with the .debs? The .rpms?Once again, command-line ("make install", I presume?). At least Ubuntu allows for a pick-and-click list of installed applications.So sure, its a mostly-decent desktop integration, as long as the packages are installed by default.