You may be interested in the "LSB Package API" discussion on the Linux Standard Base's packaging mailing list.
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/packaging/2008-June/000732.html Regards, Denis Washington On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 11:47 +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > I think resume of all this is very clear - avoid regressions at any > costs. You don't need two versions of OO.o if newest one works as old > one (except bugs of course) and features works as they supposed to be. > > All this can be achieved with careful testing (using spec-like test > cases) and spotlighting such bugs early in development cycle so they > can be fixed in time. > > > 2008/7/10 Krzysztof Lichota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 2008/7/9 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:47:56AM +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote: > >>> It is a lot of effort, but if we want to compete with Windows, which > >>> makes it possible (and easy), it should be done. > >> > >> As far as I'm aware, Windows provides no tools or infrastructure to make > >> this easier. It is completely up to the ISV how their software is > >> installed, and many of them detect an existing installation and upgrade it > >> rather than install in parallel. Every application does it differently. > > > > Yes, some do not allow parallel versions, but many do. > > But at least they allow installing different versions without hassle. > > Linux users must jump through the hoops if they need OpenOffice 2.4 on > > Dapper which has 2.0. > > Non-existance of Windows installing system is nightmare for admins and > fact that many installators are clearly broken and allow two different > versions is not a feature. It is bug. Actually it is biggest issue why > Windows tends to be unstable after myriads of installs and uninstalls > of different software. > > > The argument about ISV doing their packaging in this way is void (at > > least for FOSS software) as in Ubuntu, Ubuntu packagers are doing > > packaging, not ISVs. > > ISV can do packaging without big problems, if they know how to do it. > Skype has never been a problem for me. It has deb and it installs > perfectly. Maybe someone could create superduper packaging service for > ISV for cheap money. > > > It is not a question how it is done, but that it is possible (and > > easy) to install various versions of apps. To the point that it is > > easier to explain user how to run Firefox 3 through Wine on Dapper > > than to explain him how to get it running on Ubuntu itself. > > Firefox is not the best example, because a) download tar.gz, b) > extract it via gui in home directory, c) create link. Vola! Why you > would want them to install it via Wine is beyond my understanding. > > >>> BTW. It is already done for example for PostgreSQL - Dapper has > >>> packages for PostgreSQL 7.4, 8.0 and 8.1. They can coexist and run > >>> along each other. User chooses which package to install and then which > >>> versions to run. > >>> > >>> I know Postgres is not desktop package, but it shows it is possible to do. > >> > >> No one would argue that it is impossible, but with the current tools, it is > >> done at a linear increase in developer effort. Ubuntu developers can much > >> more effectively spend their limited time making one version very good than > >> making two versions mediocre. > > Having different versions of server programs is understandable, > because they sometimes differ greatly in features and working > principles. However, newer desktop app usually should support data > from old app. Of course it is not always so, but we should try to > achieve that. Multiple versions of OpenOffice.org won't create better > desktop, it will mess it up. It is short term vision which is not > worth to implement because for now everyone can download .tar.gz and > extract it in home directory and run it. > > I think one version policy is what make open source/free software > desktop so great. It is foundation and you shall build upon it. Mess > with regressions, don't mess with apps. > > Just my two cents, > Peter. > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
