Re: [Sugar-devel] Zero-calorie bundles?
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: Hi all, I've coded[1] initial implementation[2] for standalone 0install mode, w/o any support from shell. So, activity could bundle saccharin module to .xo and maybe 0install pure python library as well(otherwise system should have already installed zeroinstall-injector package, it could be any version - saccharin will update it from the web on the first start). So, any devs interested in such features are welcome to test it. I'm planing to complete PackageKit integration to 0install and start implementing feeds for ASLO activities that have bundled binary blobs. This is great - as a big user of binary blobs this will relieve a big headache for me. Nice to know it won't require a Sugar update too. Let me know what I need to do to get my activities ported over. I'd like to at least ship the 32bit py2.5 blobs with the activities if possible. Thanks, Wade -Wade ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Zero-calorie bundles?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: I've coded[1] initial implementation[2] for standalone 0install mode, w/o any support from shell. So, activity could bundle saccharin module to .xo and maybe 0install pure python library as well(otherwise system should have already installed zeroinstall-injector package, it could be any version - saccharin will update it from the web on the first start). Sounds like a fantastic development. I personally won't be able to review/test/use for a while but as Wade mentions, not needing explicit support from Sugar is a great, and avoids a ton of bootstrapping issues. cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Zero-calorie bundles?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:31:43PM +0100, Martin Langhoff wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: I've coded[1] initial implementation[2] for standalone 0install mode, w/o any support from shell. So, activity could bundle saccharin module to .xo and maybe 0install pure python library as well(otherwise system should have already installed zeroinstall-injector package, it could be any version - saccharin will update it from the web on the first start). Sounds like a fantastic development. I personally won't be able to review/test/use for a while but as Wade mentions, not needing explicit support from Sugar is a great, and avoids a ton of bootstrapping issues. BTW that's driving me to second evolution of Unified Objects - Journal Plugins - and now, just a Shell Integration API, thanks! I'm going to post corrective message to [FEATURE] Journal Plugins thread.. -- Aleksey ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Zero-calorie bundles?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 01:48:19PM -0500, Wade Brainerd wrote: On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@member.fsf.org wrote: Hi all, I've coded[1] initial implementation[2] for standalone 0install mode, w/o any support from shell. So, activity could bundle saccharin module to .xo and maybe 0install pure python library as well(otherwise system should have already installed zeroinstall-injector package, it could be any version - saccharin will update it from the web on the first start). So, any devs interested in such features are welcome to test it. I'm planing to complete PackageKit integration to 0install and start implementing feeds for ASLO activities that have bundled binary blobs. This is great - as a big user of binary blobs this will relieve a big headache for me. Nice to know it won't require a Sugar update too. Let me know what I need to do to get my activities ported over. I'd like to at least ship the 32bit py2.5 blobs with the activities if possible. In short terms, saccharin is just another UI for 0install infrustracture, so you need just cook proper 0install feed(it could be bundled to .xo or saccharin could use web link to your feed). See [3] for 0install packaging tutorials. There is only one difference - saccharin could use 0install feed not to launch final application(the final target of feed is describing how to install/launch such application) but using feed's dependencies as a activity dependencies[4] (saccharin will just fetch/build/install dependencies and w/o launching feed's application, will run regular activity). But saccharin could be used for launching regular 0install applications as well[5] (it depends on what arguments were passed to injection command). [3] http://0install.net/injector-packagers.html [4] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Zero_Install_integration#Activity_mode [5] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Zero_Install_integration#Launch_0install_packages -- Aleksey ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Zero-calorie bundles?
El Thu, 15-10-2009 a las 19:18 +0200, Martin Langhoff escribió: Ok - that's good. I am familiar with the limitations we are hitting with rpm and dpkg. What I truly wonder about is things like 'autopackage' and klik. See also the 'see also' section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Install It would be great if someone (Michael?) could approach them and invite them to next Saturday's IRC meeting to confront ideas (i.e.: megaflame). A while ago there was some serious discussion of the issues with these 'non-OS' pkg managers. Here is a tip of the iceberg - http://www.licquia.org/archives/2006/03/11/autopackage-goes-insane/ The discussion was heated, and sprawled across blogs. Good points were made. Before taking on something like z-i... it'd be worth understanding the good, bad and ugly and how it applies to us... I've read through this interesting saga, including the wiki page that triggered it, which has moved here since then: http://trac.autopackage.org/wiki/LinuxProblems My thinking is that Autopackage the folks are trying to solve an unsolvable problem: 100% binary compatibility across different Linux distributions (or different versions of the same distribution). They will FAIL. And even if they'd succeed, they'd FAIL later on as the x86 becomes less and less ubiquitous as x86-64, ARM and maybe MIPS gain market share. It's a slow, but unstoppable process. In a truly open market in which at least 3 or 4 architectures compete on more or less equal ground, one could as well accomodate a few more build variants for each architecture for the sake of the various OSes and their evolutionary needs. Getting the Zero Install folks involved may bring in fresh expertise They'll know about z-i, not about the needs of Sugar or its users... hence the perspective I am mentioning. Agreed, we should also hear from all the others. Well, perhaps not from the Autopackage crowd, since we already know they FAIL. :-))) -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Zero-calorie bundles?
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: Zero Install appears to have identified reasonable compromises for many of these trade-offs. While I'm not yet claiming that z-i would be a (Keeping it in the Sugar side... ) I think it's a very good idea to look into a userdir-centric packaging system such as z-i. There are of course a few other alternatives, and very well considered critiques of these systems (from OS-centric packagers usually ;-) ) so we don't have to hope we've diagnosed all the potentiall pitfalls -- others have. So a couple of questions -- out of curiosity, no intention to start a flamefest. - Is anything making z-i specially interesting? - What pitfalls will our individual end users and deployment teams face with it? cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Zero-calorie bundles?
yes, what is you exec overview/ why are you proposing to discard .xo bundling? or is this an option? With the XO 1.5 including a gnome desktop and just for development purposes, and environmental running environments having a broader base (read multi linux distro and even aspartamine) and multi windowing systems might be in order, but why is this 0install.net python solution worth considering? FoodForce2 runs from source better on Fedora without the XO bundling (maybe a porting progress issue) Learning python/ sugar/ xo development on a desktop is easier. sugar-jhbuild environment lets me run both environments at once where virtualization brings my machine to it's knees, Maybe I'm just a noob on the sugar-devel list, (and not subbed to the .sf.net list, so not even trying to send there) and expecting more of a business, case but sell me / us on it, please. I know there are next gen .rpm build from source like RPath, and .deb and packaging things, different parts of even the Linux/ *Nix family trees (can you say darwin/*bsd/ why isn't sugar running native on a mac) are rather territorial, and flame producing reglious wars, but even a then, why not use some other build from tarball type approach? On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:32 AM, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: Zero Install appears to have identified reasonable compromises for many of these trade-offs. While I'm not yet claiming that z-i would be a (Keeping it in the Sugar side... ) I think it's a very good idea to look into a userdir-centric packaging system such as z-i. There are of course a few other alternatives, and very well considered critiques of these systems (from OS-centric packagers usually ;-) ) so we don't have to hope we've diagnosed all the potentiall pitfalls -- others have. So a couple of questions -- out of curiosity, no intention to start a flamefest. - Is anything making z-i specially interesting? - What pitfalls will our individual end users and deployment teams face with it? cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- DancesWithCars leave the wolves behind ;-) ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Zero-calorie bundles?
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:05 AM, DancesWithCars danceswithc...@gmail.com wrote: yes, what is you exec overview/ why are you proposing to discard .xo bundling? or is this an option? I don't think that we're discussing discarding .xo bundling. I think we're discussing augmenting .xo bundling with 0install to bring in dependencies. My only question about 0install is how does it hold up when there is no infrastructure access? Can I still transfer a .xo bundle to someone under a tree and expect it to work? With the current apple-like include everything approach it works. -Wade ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Zero-calorie bundles?
El Thu, 15-10-2009 a las 10:32 +0200, Martin Langhoff escribió: I think it's a very good idea to look into a userdir-centric packaging system such as z-i. There are of course a few other alternatives, and very well considered critiques of these systems (from OS-centric packagers usually ;-) ) so we don't have to hope we've diagnosed all the potentiall pitfalls -- others have. So a couple of questions -- out of curiosity, no intention to start a flamefest. - Is anything making z-i specially interesting? Honestly? I think the most interesting feature of Zero Install is that it has an active development community working to solve the same hard problems that we are facing with our XO bundles. RPM and Deb have even stronger development, of course, but they're focusing on different usecases and they also seem to be too associated with specific distributions. - What pitfalls will our individual end users and deployment teams face with it? I'm not sure how to answer this question, yet. Getting the Zero Install folks involved may bring in fresh expertise offering new ways to solve the problems on which we have been stalling for years. Let's give them a chance to prove their ideas. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/ ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Zero-calorie bundles?
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: Honestly? I think the most interesting feature of Zero Install is that it has an active development community working to solve the same hard problems that we are facing with our XO bundles. Ok - that's good. I am familiar with the limitations we are hitting with rpm and dpkg. What I truly wonder about is things like 'autopackage' and klik. See also the 'see also' section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Install - What pitfalls will our individual end users and deployment teams face with it? I'm not sure how to answer this question, yet. A while ago there was some serious discussion of the issues with these 'non-OS' pkg managers. Here is a tip of the iceberg - http://www.licquia.org/archives/2006/03/11/autopackage-goes-insane/ The discussion was heated, and sprawled across blogs. Good points were made. Before taking on something like z-i... it'd be worth understanding the good, bad and ugly and how it applies to us... Getting the Zero Install folks involved may bring in fresh expertise They'll know about z-i, not about the needs of Sugar or its users... hence the perspective I am mentioning. m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Zero-calorie bundles?
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Martin Langhoff martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: Honestly? I think the most interesting feature of Zero Install is that it has an active development community working to solve the same hard problems that we are facing with our XO bundles. Ok - that's good. I am familiar with the limitations we are hitting with rpm and dpkg. What I truly wonder about is things like 'autopackage' and klik. Autopackage was the one I'd seen before, but forgot the name. After ranting on this thread this morning, I ran across http://0install.net/matrix.html which contains a mini ZeroInstall take on the Autopackage and other options. rPath.com is from some of the old Red Hat guys doing RPM one better, making appliances, somewhere between build systems and git, etc, afaict... but personally, I'm still stuck on the older hardware doesn't boot from usb, and cdr isos are very slow by comparison (a young person was complaining (some) when XO hardware was taken away and replaced with a sugar cdr on a regular laptop in the USA...). -- DancesWithCars leave the wolves behind ;-) ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
