gnome-hello
Mike Hearn
m.hearn at signal.qinetiq.com
Mon Aug 9 12:25:29 EEST 2004
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
More information about the xdg
mailing list