Auto Package

[Mike Hearn]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:40:39 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Users want a system which, as a whole, is well-tested and in good working
> order.  This is in direct conflict with continously pushing new code.

I don't understand this, it seems to be mixing package testing and code
testing. Presumably a newer version of software XYZ has more bugfixes than
an old version because they've been cumulatively worked on for more time.

> One of the ways in which open source platforms are superior to these
> commercial offerings is that they provide a rich set of software ...

Well, as already said I must disagree. A platform is exactly that: a base
on which to build. What you are saying is that it's better to have an
appliance or console type system, something that is shipped as a whole but
harder to extend later. This is a different philosophy.

> What it sounds like you're saying is that packaging is only useful for
> infrastructure components; if so, I could scarcely disagree more.

Packaging is useful for software, but I don't think it's right to try and
apply the same techniques and technologies to everything. Maybe if there
was only one Linux distribution in the world this could work acceptably
for all stakeholders in the system, but there are many.
 
> The issue is that different platforms have differing requirements for
> tight integration with the rest of the system.

I see cross-distro (and maybe even cross-OS) standards as the way forward
here, rather than duplicating packaging effort between distributions.
 
> Thus, "Everyone could just use autopackage" isn't a significantly
> stronger argument than "Everyone could just use (deb|rpm|...)".

Well, practical experience suggests that it is hard to make an RPM which
works well for everybody even with tools like Alien. That's why a new
format was built.

> The solution proposed by autopackage is to push the packaging burden
> upstream, by having the developer also act as the integrator.  The
> primary advantage of this would seem to be that (if somehow successfully
> implemented) a larger number of people would be working on the problem.

Not just "larger" but "large enough" - only when upstream are producing
packages, indeed *expected* to produce binary packages, will you get the
situation where users never have to compile or wait.

> In all other respects, though (functionality, coordination between
> developers, robustness, QA) it's a step backwards.

Well again I must disagree. I have worked on upstream projects and seen my
work mangled hopelessly during packaging - by Debian, no less. This does
not make me happy. I'd rather not name names as it's not anybodies fault
specifically, it's more than downstream packaging was done differently to
upstream packaging and this introduced unintended bugs. I see upstream as
being the best people to package their own software as they understand it
the best. Tight integration with the rest of the system should be gained
through strong, supported APIs and standards.

> This is how people managed software before we had packaging systems,
> and its problems are the reasons why packaging systems and distributions
> evolved.  It was a mess!

Once again, must disagree. Many people seem to enjoy the MacOS X
packaging/software distribution system yet it does not rely on Apple
integrating every piece of software written for the Mac into a central
repository. It relies on ISVs distributing their own software and
providing standards and APIs for integration.
 
> Indeed, many open source developers find it somewhat offensive when
> their work is disparaged in this way.  I'm doing my best to respond to
> your ideas rather than your tone, but bear in mind that this will hamper
> your progress if you hope to sell your idea.

Really? I wouldn't know anything about that. Why, nobody at all on Planet
Debian has insulted *my* work:

http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/autopackage_designed_by_monkeys-2005-03-28-14-20.html
http://www.licquia.org/archives/2005/03/27/autopackage-considered-harmful/

I am not intending to be offensive, I'm stating my opinion that the
centralised model can never scale effectively. That doesn't mean I think
Ubuntu is bad, or a waste of time - far from it! I'm also not disparaging
your work. I've tried Ubuntu and it is of very high quality. My issues are
with the centralised distribution model and philosophy, not anybody or any
piece of work in particular.

> The strongest sales pitch in the open source world is "Here's the code,
> I've shown how this idea can work, you can see for yourself that it's
> better."

That's exactly what I've done. It took 3 years, but we are *today* proving
that the decentralised model can work. It works better with co-operation
from distribution developers, but I never expected to get that easily and
it was designed with that in mind.

>> This is the guarantee that MacOS X and Windows provide, so to be
>> competitive with them we must also provide it.
> 
> In what way do they provide such a guarantee?

How often do you think Windows or MacOS X users have to compile software,
or make do with old versions? Windows or Mac software *always* comes with
an installer or DMG/PKG file people can use to install binaries of the
program and it's always of the latest version. That's what I'd like to see
for Linux.

thanks -mike