On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 15:14 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> My general feeling, having spoken to lots of ISVs, is that they don't
> actually _want_ this.
>
> In order to support their customers, they're well aware that they have
> to target particular distributions and versions - and they're q
in favor of the Berlin API, as I'm hoping it will ease things a
> bit for us.
>
> Regards
> Pär Lidén
>
> 2008/6/24 Denis Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 12:03 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 20:02 +0200
Op woensdag 25-06-2008 om 21:35 uur [tijdzone +0300], schreef Pär Lidén:
> To those who say ISVs anyway targets specific distributions: Yes, they would
> still have to test it on all the major distributions, but they could use a
> single installation implementation. And they would have to learn onl
Lidén
2008/6/24 Denis Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 12:03 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 20:02 +0200, Denis Washington wrote:
> > > We shouldn't resignate just because nothing came out of the previous
> > > att
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 12:03 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 20:02 +0200, Denis Washington wrote:
> > We shouldn't resignate just because nothing came out of the previous
> > attempts. Also, the LSB Package API is designed to require as little
> >
On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 20:02 +0200, Denis Washington wrote:
> We shouldn't resignate just because nothing came out of the previous
> attempts. Also, the LSB Package API is designed to require as little
> adjustments as possible to installers - it's just to calls and a singl
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 01:34:31PM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Denis Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't think this is a corner case at all. For one thing, propietary
> > applications might just don't play a role _because_ there is no really
> > good di
>> I think you are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
>> For the corner cases of where this does apply (proprietary software)
>> this is not enough of a use case to justify all the work required.
>
>I don't think this is a corner case at all. For one thing, propietary
>applicat
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Denis Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think this is a corner case at all. For one thing, propietary
> applications might just don't play a role _because_ there is no really
> good distribution method for them - the typical chicken-and-egg problem.
>
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 16:18 +0200, Denis Washington wrote:
> The problem I currently see with single-click install is that it still
> relies on a single package format (.rpm), so there would have to be
> several packages of the same application again. Another particular
> problem I see is security:
cture, I found this was a
> shame.
>
> To reignite the the initiative, I decided to design and develop a
> prototype implementation of the Berlin API, most creatively named the
> "LSB Package API". It is designed as a simple D-Bus interface
> accompanied with an XML-bas
d develop a
> prototype implementation of the Berlin API, most creatively named the
> "LSB Package API". It is designed as a simple D-Bus interface
> accompanied with an XML-based package description format. A detailed
> description and the source code can be found on this page:
>
&g
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 14:57 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le samedi 21 juin 2008 à 13:20 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy a écrit :
>
> > How is this different than PackageKit?
>
> It would make possible for ISVs to create packages in a non-native
> packaging format, so they don't have to care about the
ages, rather than trying to spin it's own thing.
We shouldn't resignate just because nothing came out of the previous
attempts. Also, the LSB Package API is designed to require as little
adjustments as possible to installers - it's just to calls and a single
file, after all.
> >
Linux infrastructure, I found this was a
> shame.
>
> To reignite the the initiative, I decided to design and develop a
> prototype implementation of the Berlin API, most creatively named the
> "LSB Package API". It is designed as a simple D-Bus interface
> accompanied wi
Le samedi 21 juin 2008 à 13:20 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy a écrit :
> How is this different than PackageKit?
It would make possible for ISVs to create packages in a non-native
packaging format, so they don't have to care about the format each
distro uses, or about understanding each distro dependency
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Denis Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some time ago, it was discussed on an LSB face-to-face meeting that an
> API should be developed that allows ISVs to install sotware packages
> which integrate into the package manager - the "Berlin Packaging API".
> Whi
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 06:59 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Denis Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some time ago, it was discussed on an LSB face-to-face meeting that an
> > API should be developed that allows ISVs to install sotware packages
> > which integrate
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 13:20 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> How is this different than PackageKit? PackageKit seems to cover the
> use case of presenting a comprehensive API and userspace tools to
> manage packages consistently across distros. What can the Berlin API
> do that PackageKit doesn't do,
plementation of the Berlin API, most creatively named the
"LSB Package API". It is designed as a simple D-Bus interface
accompanied with an XML-based package description format. A detailed
description and the source code can be found on this page:
http://www.linuxfoundation.or
20 matches
Mail list logo
