Edgy Third Party Package Management

[Florian Zeitz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jerry Haltom wrote:
> Of course. Nobody in their right mind would supply a version for all
> 100. Nobody is proposing that.
> 
> I am proposing we provide a way for ISVs to publish packages for OUR
> distribution: Ubuntu. That way can be as open as possible and leave as
> much room for other distros to follow as possible... but the goal is
> still to have people provide packages for Ubuntu. This is a way we can
> take the initiative.
> 
Agreed, but if you want to take the initiative the system should really
be very open, so that other distributions _can_ use it. The current
proposition is very apt centric, so this won't be possible.
GNU/Linux generally suffers from the lack of a common packaging system.
There are various approaches (like autopackage) that are all disliked
for one or the other reason (one reason I always hear, is that it is
circumventing the distributions package management, which is said to be
far superior (ironically people tend to think that there own package
management is the superiorest)).

Third party apt is still worth implementing. It would even help
developers/MOTUs who want to provide beta quality packages for testing
to interested people, but saying it is as difficult to do Linux
packaging as it is to do Windows packaging is plainly wrong IMHO.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEgLyR0JXcdjR+9YQRArXWAKCr/oUf4vtVYkXsKN58mRLjd2cPBACeK7jh
o8cN/bTFdqN85ozFrINjGRg=
=JBRi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----