LTS and release methodology
dwashington at gmx.net
Thu Jul 10 08:56:11 UTC 2008
You may be interested in the "LSB Package API" discussion on the Linux
Standard Base's packaging mailing list.
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 11:47 +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> I think resume of all this is very clear - avoid regressions at any
> costs. You don't need two versions of OO.o if newest one works as old
> one (except bugs of course) and features works as they supposed to be.
> All this can be achieved with careful testing (using spec-like test
> cases) and spotlighting such bugs early in development cycle so they
> can be fixed in time.
> 2008/7/10 Krzysztof Lichota <krzysiek at lichota.net>:
> > 2008/7/9 Matt Zimmerman <mdz at ubuntu.com>:
> >> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:47:56AM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
> >>> It is a lot of effort, but if we want to compete with Windows, which
> >>> makes it possible (and easy), it should be done.
> >> As far as I'm aware, Windows provides no tools or infrastructure to make
> >> this easier. It is completely up to the ISV how their software is
> >> installed, and many of them detect an existing installation and upgrade it
> >> rather than install in parallel. Every application does it differently.
> > Yes, some do not allow parallel versions, but many do.
> > But at least they allow installing different versions without hassle.
> > Linux users must jump through the hoops if they need OpenOffice 2.4 on
> > Dapper which has 2.0.
> Non-existance of Windows installing system is nightmare for admins and
> fact that many installators are clearly broken and allow two different
> versions is not a feature. It is bug. Actually it is biggest issue why
> Windows tends to be unstable after myriads of installs and uninstalls
> of different software.
> > The argument about ISV doing their packaging in this way is void (at
> > least for FOSS software) as in Ubuntu, Ubuntu packagers are doing
> > packaging, not ISVs.
> ISV can do packaging without big problems, if they know how to do it.
> Skype has never been a problem for me. It has deb and it installs
> perfectly. Maybe someone could create superduper packaging service for
> ISV for cheap money.
> > It is not a question how it is done, but that it is possible (and
> > easy) to install various versions of apps. To the point that it is
> > easier to explain user how to run Firefox 3 through Wine on Dapper
> > than to explain him how to get it running on Ubuntu itself.
> Firefox is not the best example, because a) download tar.gz, b)
> extract it via gui in home directory, c) create link. Vola! Why you
> would want them to install it via Wine is beyond my understanding.
> >>> BTW. It is already done for example for PostgreSQL - Dapper has
> >>> packages for PostgreSQL 7.4, 8.0 and 8.1. They can coexist and run
> >>> along each other. User chooses which package to install and then which
> >>> versions to run.
> >>> I know Postgres is not desktop package, but it shows it is possible to do.
> >> No one would argue that it is impossible, but with the current tools, it is
> >> done at a linear increase in developer effort. Ubuntu developers can much
> >> more effectively spend their limited time making one version very good than
> >> making two versions mediocre.
> Having different versions of server programs is understandable,
> because they sometimes differ greatly in features and working
> principles. However, newer desktop app usually should support data
> from old app. Of course it is not always so, but we should try to
> achieve that. Multiple versions of OpenOffice.org won't create better
> desktop, it will mess it up. It is short term vision which is not
> worth to implement because for now everyone can download .tar.gz and
> extract it in home directory and run it.
> I think one version policy is what make open source/free software
> desktop so great. It is foundation and you shall build upon it. Mess
> with regressions, don't mess with apps.
> Just my two cents,
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss