Ralf Mardorf schreef op 05-10-2016 15:44:
On 05 Oct 2016, at 14:49, Xen <l...@xenhideout.nl> wrote:
Ion Windows it is very easy to put some application on some usb stick
and run it from there, but this is hardly possible even in Linux.
You don't need to link against shared libraries. Neither a container,
nor snap is required to do this.
Sure. I will concur. It's just last time I tried I couldn't get it to
work. Maybe that's my deficiency but at that time I did not find a way
to get that particular package statically compiled, it only spewed out
error after error that I could not fix with my limited C skills.
Regardless that is not really a great way to make an app portable, it
should suffice to keep your libraries in your own small little directory
structure.
These apps usually cannot be made portable because they have fixed
links to libraries.
My /opt directories disagree with your claim. Sure, by default
upstream for good reasons usually links against shared libs.
The nature of solutions is that they first have to be available. It is
not good enough if they theoretically exist.
It is not even good enough if they practically exist. They first have to
be accessible and available.
I do not know what packages or applications you are mentioning under
/opt. Did you compile them yourself?
That is hardly accessible to a regular user, isn't it.
Chrome is portable though at least with regard to its own files. Not
with regard to the system. That's something packaged by Google.
I mean I think the efforts made by Ubuntu to find a solution to this
problem is very good. We were just mentioning the difficulties of such
an approach.
You cannot on the one hand say: Ubuntu has seen a good need for this and
its snaps system is a solution.
And then on the other hand say to me: Wah, you're complaining about
nothing.
You are speaking with a split tongue here.
--
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
