gnome-hello

[Mike Hearn]

Hi Bryce,

Bryce Harrington wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Regarding this issue of determining a "base platform" for desktop linux
> applications, is what you're looking for to be some sort of documented
> "desktop capabilities/requirements" list?  I ask because this is
> something we've been putting some thought into at OSDL with some of our
> desktop-oriented member companies, that could, for instance, specify the
> particular bits that software packagers could expect to be present
> across any distro/desktop.

Yes, that's basically what I'm looking for. So far the LSB has not 
addressed this issue but they seem keen, and maybe after C++ gets into 
the spec it'll start to rev faster (sorry but a 2+ year release cycle is 
far too slow for current desktop Linux development) and expand what's in 
its base profile. If so then that'd be great.

The other concern I have about the LSB is that currently it seems most 
distros don't actually install the LSB conformance packages. They are 
very small and only add things like /etc/lsb-release, a symlink for the 
linker and so on, but still distros like Fedora and SuSE don't seem to 
include it in the base package sets. The LSB has been out for a long 
time now, so this does worry me. How do you know if what you're 
installing into is LSB compliant if the necessary files and symlinks 
aren't in place?

Last concern about the LSB I have is that I think it unlikely open 
source desktop apps will ever actually be LSB conformant because they 
will want to use libraries outside of whatever platform is specified and 
the LSB specifically prohibits this. You might get a lot of informal 
"mostly" compliant apps though.

> Like you mention, LSB doesn't cover that particular level of detail.
> Does this sort of thing sound like something autopackage could make use
> of?  If so, maybe we could pick your brain about it a bit?

Well, autopackage is only one piece of the "make software installation 
on Linux easy" puzzle IMHO. It provides a way to distribute 
dependency-checking/resolving packages that work on "any" Linux 
distribution (obviously that's not really true, but it's Good Enough), 
but there are still two things needed to make software installation and 
development on Linux as easy as on Windows/MacOS:

- A large, modern base package set. I say package set and not platform
   because I don't think there needs to be any API consistency rules (so,
   not like in KDE/Gnome for instance). Experience with Windows
   development leads me to think consistency isn't important. This is
   where organizations like the LSB, OSDL, freedesktop.org etc are
   needed, to define base sets that distros are actually going to install
   by default (or at very least, provide a single virtual package in
   their repositories to pull it all in).

   Large is I think important, perhaps the most important thing but also
   the most difficult to achieve politically(?). Win32 is large, almost
   unimaginably large. It is not consistent or frequently updated.

   Nonetheless, in terms of supporting the development of advanced
   desktop apps without lots of static linking, it does
   very well.

   This is needed to make installation robust/reliable (assuming
   developers have the discipline to stick to it). People will always
   use code outside the platform, this is necessary and healthy, which
   is why we still need dependency resolvers. But it should increase
   the installation success rate dramatically.


- Some kind of package management abstraction layer similar in goals
   (but not implementation) to the new HAL, ie something desktops
   can integrate with and depend upon. This would let us drive package
   management right into the heart of the desktop projects in a way that
   does not endanger their portability.

   This is needed to make the whole process as slick and straightforward
   for end users as on competing operating systems.


Neither of those two things are in scope for autopackage. Obviously, 
they all need to exist and work together for maximum effect so I'm 
watching the progress of the LSB and freedesktop.org platform efforts 
with interest, ditto for HAL.

If OSDL feels it has something to contribute, please join the fray ....

thanks -mike