Re: [Hampshire] Re:Application installers

On 21/02/2008, Stephen Pelc <stephen@???> wrote:
> > From: "James Courtier-Dutton"
>
>
> > > We're just about to take VFX Forth for Linux to Beta stage.
> > > Coming from the Windows world, I'm fed up with the Linux
> > > installers! The rpm and deb system is fine for distros and the
> > > like, but hopelessly inadequate for third party apps. After
> >
> > Why do you think that?
> > .rpm and .deb are fine for installs.
>
>
> Oh, reely? The long answer will appear appear in the next
> release of my Linux development notes, " A compiler writer's
> guide to Linux", when ample spare time permits.
>
> The short answer is that Linux for Intel IA32/64 is not an O/S,
> but a family of platforms with a varying degree of application
> binary compatibility. The theme song is "Who knows where the
> libs goes ..." and went and which libs and ... so in the end you
> issue not one, but five installers all containing the same
> binaries!
> 1) rpm-32
> 2) rpm-64
> 3) deb-32
> 4) deb-64
> 5) Some tarball
>
> And when I say it's ridiculous, I'm attacked by various
> adherents of minorly-different warring Protestant sects. You're
> right, I am feeling crabby.
>
>
> > No messing about with any GUI during install, it just installs as it
> > should, like any other .deb or .rpm.
> > All this strange windows stuff, expecting to ask users questions
> > during install, is all totally unnecessary.
>
>
> The only questions our single Windows installer (works on *all*
> Windows from 95 onwards) asks are:
> 1) license key
> 2) where do you want it?
>

Ah! I was not aware that you were talking about a binary only
distribution with some sort of license key. You are pretty much on
your own in that case and have to deal with all the different
distributions yourself. Not a pleasant job!
With normal GPL/BSD open source, one simply creates an upstream source
code release, and all the distros do all the packaging for you.

James