Edgy Third Party Package Management

Lukas Sabota punkrockguy318 at comcast.net
Sat Jun 3 15:32:45 BST 2006

On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 00:01 -0500, Jerry Haltom wrote: 
> Now that Dapper is out the door, I'd like to bring up discussion on a
> project of mine. I have brought it up before, but attention was not
> gathered... most likely do to the impending release of Dapper.
> https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+spec/apt-third-party
> This specification seeks to create a standard methodology and associated
> file format by which Third Party ISVs which have no relation to Ubuntu
> can distribute software targeted to Ubuntu users. It seeks to do so in a
> way which is distribution and package system agnostic.
> This specification is different from existing specifications of the same
> nature in that it begins with a fairly clear use case and attempts to
> narrow it's focus in light of some assumptions. If you don't agree with
> these assumptions, you probably won't like the specification. Those
> assumptions are:
> 1. Users want to install software from third parties. Third parties want
> to provide software to users.
> 2. Users expect this installed software to integrate into their existing
> OS. One centralized way to report upgrade notifications. One way to
> apply an upgrade. One package management system to debug, installed
> software and manage dependencies. ISVs would prefer this as it is a
> benefit to their user base. Such a benefit makes their users happy and
> gets them more business.
> 3. There is no appropriate way to insure that installed software
> distributed by entities with no authenticated relationship with Ubuntu
> will not harm a user's system. It is not worth the time to consider a
> system that would.
> 4. Existing systems which attempt to bridge all distributions
> (AutoPackage) suck for one reason or another.
> 5. Ubuntu isn't going to package all of this on their own. They don't
> want to or need to, and in some cases aren't allowed to.
> Please read and comment. I would like to have this topic brought up in
> one or more official channels or meetings. If any core-dev's are
> interested in discussing this, please let me know what needs to be done.
> I believe it's success requires more than just one person delivering an
> implementation. After all, it won't be successful if ISVs don't know and
> can't rely on it's presence. The only way this can happen is if it
> becomes supported by Ubuntu.
> Thanks!
I just thought I'd like to remind you all that Novell has attempted to
solve this problem on the RPM-front with Red Carpet [1].  How do Red
Carpet's goals differ from our goals for Edgy?  Would Ubuntu benefit
from following suit by working on Red Carpet from apt/Ubuntu rather than
developing her own system?

God bless,

[1] http://www.open-carpet.org

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list