Re: [Hampshire] Application installers

On 19/02/2008, Vic <lug@???> wrote:
> >> Some of the filenames within those packages have version numbers
> >> appended,
> >> some don't.
> >
> > And the ones that don't have a version number must work with every
> > version or the whole thing will fail.
>
> No, that's not true.
>
> You set up what you use with your environment - by using $PATH, for example.

Your examples were Kernel packages. Not sure why your PATH is
relevant, but let's move on.

>
> > This is the same thing. Instead of appending a version number you are
> > prepending some extra directories.
>
> There is no other way to do it; with the file systems we hav available,
> two files may not occupy the same filespec.

Agreed. So you either place in a different directory or add a version
number or find some other way to distinguish the file. I don't think
we are arguing about this, just pointing out different solutions.

>
> But claiming that this means you can't use packages is purely
> erroneous;you can.

That is not what I was implying, but maybe I was not clear.

>
> > In the perfect world, where every user has root access or does not
> > have to wait a week for their IT provider to turn up and do an
> > install, you would be absolutely right.
>
> So if there is a problem installing stuff system-wide, allow users to
> install locally to their home areas until that system-wide problem is
> resolved. And if that means 1000 users doing multi-gigabyte installations,
> then that's clearly a problem that needs highlighting to IT.

So now you are suggesting that we should distribute our software in
yet another format? One that can be installed as a user as well as the
RPM/DEB files and those for Windows and Solaris. Or are you suggesting
that anyone should be able to install/remove RPMs?

The one format we have now works for all situations. IS does not stop
you from installing as root or as a user. There is nothing stopping
root from changing the ownership or permissions of any file installed
by any package manager after installing.

RPM/DEB do prevent you from installing as a user. Anything you do to
enable users to install (sudo, for example) just negates the whole
security argument. Yes, you can limit the people who can sudo, but you
still have to trust them and trust that their passwords have not been
compromised.

>
> > Our customers require this.
>
> I'd bet they don't. Most such "requirements" are merely a lack of
> communication.

I think we shall have to disagree about that one.

>
> > The "wait a week for their IT to do an
> > install" comment may sound like fiction but sadly, particularly in the
> > larger companies, it is becoming more and more the norm.
>
> If it's a line-of-business application, it will get sorted PDQ. IT
> departments know why they exist...

If it stops a director printing a spreadsheet of last month's numbers
you can be sure IT will be there in a shot. If it is an engineer or
another front line employee these things don't seem to have the same
urgency.

Rich