Re: [Hampshire] Application installers

>> # rpm -q kernel-smp
>> kernel-smp-2.6.9-55.0.2.EL
>> kernel-smp-2.6.9-55.0.6.EL
>> kernel-smp-2.6.9-55.0.12.EL
>
> Right, and each one of these kernels has a version number appended to
> the file name

No, those are the package names.

Some of the filenames within those packages have version numbers appended,
some don't.

> Gets a little more complicated if you need different versions of bash
> or something like that though. You can only have one /bin/bash.

Yes, but you can have multiple $INSTALL_DIR/bin/bash . This is the sort of
trick you pull to get clashing packages to install on the same system.
It's hardly rocket science...

> If anything, installing as a regular user prevents the kinds of
> privilege escalations that suid apps have.

So don't do suid apps. Use administrative privilege to do administrative
tasks (like installing software), and use user privilege for doing user
taks (like running it).

> Write access is needed only
> during the install and when doing upgrades.

root privilege is needed only during install and upgrade...

>> No, I can't see that. I think it makes no sense under any circumstance.
>> Sorry, an' that...
>
> Let's see, 100 users each with even the minimal 2GB install would
> require an extra 200GB backup media.

You're fixated on the idea that every user needs to be able to do
installs, and you're breaking the security model to achieve this.

If you merely reserve admin privilege for what it's designed for, you get
*one* installation system-wide that doesn't get broken as soon as some
clueless user has a "good idea". If you want each user to be able to patch
his own view of life, build a link farm in his home area & let him play
with that.

> Seems to make sense to me not to
> put it in the home area. I know what you are gonna say now, backup
> scripts can be more intelligent than that, but now you have to have
> someone write this backup script that knows not to backup this one
> particular directory (which could be named anything the user wants)...

Why are you backing up programme and data areas together?

You only need one backup of system-wide stuff (e.g. the app).

You make individual backups of individual stuff (e.g. user data).

Confusing the two will only lead to your backups becoming bloated beyond
the point of usefulness.

> Anyway, I am not sure why I am defending InstallShield. I was simply
> answering a question about other installers and since I have not used
> the ones mentioned I thought I would point out that InstallShield was
> another option.

Yes, but you're also making assertions about the way things need to be
done when in fact that need is only the result of your own (broken) rules.
As this is an archived and searchable resource, I wouldn't want that going
unchallenged, as someone reading this might think it's a good idea to do
it that way.

Vic.