« Return to Thread: Questions
On 16 January 2012 23:50, Dave Abrahams <dave@...> wrote:
> on Mon Jan 16 2012, Thomas Leonard <talex5-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16 January 2012 20:00, Dave Abrahams <dave@...> wrote:
>>> I am investigating 0install both as a new user and as a potential
>>> "exploiter" for a project I've been working on called "ryppl" (I'll
>>> explain more about that later). I have several questions:
>>> * I installed 0install through macports. The latest version there is
>>> version 1.2. I don't know how to upgrade 0install itself in that
>>> situation. How do I do that?
>> I guess you need to wait for MacPorts to update it.
> what about using, e.g. pip or easy_install?
As I understand it, the main problem is the non-Python dependencies (PyGTK, etc).
> And, stepping back, isn't there something fundamentally wrong with a
> packaging system that can't update itself?
On Linux systems, it's expected that programs don't update themselves. Other systems may have other conventions, though. The Windows version updates itself.
>> You can do:
>> 0install update alias:foo
> Nifty; but that's no in the 0install man page I have.
> Anyway, why should I have to write alias: ? I understand that if
> there's an ambiguity you have to tell people about it and stop, but 99%
> of the time there's none.
It could cause a problem with scripts (e.g. a script that did "0launch selections" might suddenly fail if the user happened to have an alias called "selections"). Arguably scripts should always use a prefix (e.g. "0launch file:selections"), but relative paths weren't supported with file: before (now fixed).
> Ease-of-use is really important to me. Ryppl's primary test case is
> going to be the Boost C++ Libraries, which do *not* have a good
> ease-of-installation story. It's part of our mission to fix that.
>>> I'd also like to be able to bless some "feed catalogs" that map short
>>> names to feeds and be able to install anything in one of those
>>> catalogs by its short name (unless there was an ambiguity). I can
>>> always put a wrapper around 0install for this sort of thing, but I
>>> worry that if it isn't a native feature 0install will not be able to
>>> gain much market share.
>> ROX has a feed catalog like that ("ROX-Defauts", which sets up a "rox"
>> alias and maps various MIME types to ROX application handlers).
> I'm not sure if that's what I mean by a feed catalog. I'm thinking of
> something like
> [BTW, what do the initial "-" characters mean on some of those feeds?]
Retired (no longer monitored for updates, usually because they no longer exist, but still available from the mirror).
> but with an optional second column that gives a short name for each feed
> (where the default short name is the last part of the URI, but without
> the .xml extension). So if I said http://roscidus.com/0mirror/feed-list
> is a "blessed feed catalog" then I could "0install TightVNC" and it
> would be the same as "0install http://0install.de/feeds/TightVNC.xml".
With the ROX-style system, you can just type "TightVNC" and it will download it automatically the first time you use it.
>> A more general one would indeed be useful.
>>> * Even if you don't make short names available, doesn't it make sense to
>>> give the feed URL when announcing an update? I ask in part because of
>>> and the feeling that I must be missing something obvious.
>> Oops. Cut-and-paste problem; the page with the feed link has moved to:
> Sorry, what I mean is that I was expecting to see this URI in the posting:
Could do. Especially now we have the "0install update" command.
>>> * Is there any chance that 0install could be dual-licensed so it was
>>> available under some FOSS license that doesn't include the letters
>>> "GPL?" I know, I know, but unfortunately it is a reality that even
>>> LGPL is enough to prevent adoption in some shops.
>> Unlikely. Probably easier to educate them that LGPL isn't going to be
>> a problem (unless the company actually wants to make a competing,
>> non-LGPL installer using our code and can't work out how to do it as a
>> separate module). Normally, of course, they won't be distributing
>> 0install itself at all and so there's no problem with copyright
> As I said, "I know, I know, but..."
> Of course it's probably easier for _you_ if _I_ educate them about LGPL
We could perhaps put something about it on the legal issues page (e.g. "Since you're not distributing 0install itself, you don't need a license to distribute it, and can therefore ignore the license terms entirely; your users can use a client with any license they please as long as it understands the XML format."). Though it would need more detail for people bundling it (0export, etc).
Dr Thomas Leonard http://0install.net/
GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1
GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA
« Return to Thread: Questions
|Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble||Forum Help|