Re: [Interest] Official linuxdeployqt ?
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022, Hamish Moffatt via Interest wrote: > I have never used an AppImage in 25 years of Debian and Linux experience > either. It sounds equivalent to downloading a random unsigned .EXE from a web > site and running it. It is, with the added complication of mixing things of incompatible licences (like GPL and OpenSSL) inside it. I’ve seen one, and I was not impressed and I will continue arguing against this practice, in favour of distro-specific packaging. bye, //mirabilos (both private-professionally as well as for $dayjob) -- Infrastrukturexperte • tarent solutions GmbH Am Dickobskreuz 10, D-53121 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/ Telephon +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235 HRB AG Bonn 5168 • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg /⁀\ The UTF-8 Ribbon ╲ ╱ Campaign against Mit dem tarent-Newsletter nichts mehr verpassen: ╳ HTML eMail! Also, https://www.tarent.de/newsletter ╱ ╲ header encryption! ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Official linuxdeployqt ?
On 9/8/22 23:50, Roland Hughes via Interest wrote: On 8/9/22 05:00, Vadim Peretokin wrote: Just to correct some biases here, in my opinion as a software publisher AppImage is still the simplest way for a user to run your app.? To get Mudlet (a FOSS text games client) all you need to do is go to https://www.mudlet.org/download, download the .tar, right-click to extract it and double-click to run.? Not to discount your experience, but I've been in IT almost 40 years now. Not once in my career have I ever used an AppImage. I have used Debian, RPM, Snap, and Flatpak. Most companies and many Linux distros have started making it more difficult for someone to "just download and install from a Web site" because Malware is everywhere. When your OpenSource project includes the scripts to make a proper Debian or RPM package, you dramatically increase the odds of getting your package into the actual distro repos. Does any distro actually put AppImage files in their repo? I'm asking. I have never heard of it but that doesn't mean there isn't some obscure distro doing that. I have never used an AppImage in 25 years of Debian and Linux experience either. It sounds equivalent to downloading a random unsigned .EXE from a web site and running it. I prefer official deb packages, or OCI/Docker container images, or at least a proper third party deb (ideally in a repository). Flatpak offers signed builds and sandboxing. If you were going to build a deployment format into linux deployqt it would have to be a modern format that included signing and sandboxing. regards Hamish ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Official linuxdeployqt ?
Well, It's certainly not "optimal" and I don't believe it should have a high priority. It will lead to many horrible hacks for people compiling 32-bit on a 64-bit machine. Roland On 8/9/22 10:17, Alexander Dyagilev wrote: I think that an optimal solution (and a pretty fit for me) would be for the linuxdeployqt to just deploy all the necessary files next to the specified binary. It's up to a developer what to do next with all the files. Of course, linuxdeployqt can also support (optionally) any number of various packages. But this should be optional and has a less priority to implement. -- Roland Hughes, President Logikal Solutions (630)-205-1593 http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com http://www.infiniteexposure.net http://www.johnsmith-book.com http://www.logikalblog.com http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Official linuxdeployqt ?
I think that an optimal solution (and a pretty fit for me) would be for the linuxdeployqt to just deploy all the necessary files next to the specified binary. It's up to a developer what to do next with all the files. Of course, linuxdeployqt can also support (optionally) any number of various packages. But this should be optional and has a less priority to implement. On 8/9/2022 4:50 PM, Roland Hughes via Interest wrote: On 8/9/22 05:00, Vadim Peretokin wrote: Just to correct some biases here, in my opinion as a software publisher AppImage is still the simplest way for a user to run your app.? To get Mudlet (a FOSS text games client) all you need to do is go to https://www.mudlet.org/download, download the .tar, right-click to extract it and double-click to run.? Not to discount your experience, but I've been in IT almost 40 years now. Not once in my career have I ever used an AppImage. I have used Debian, RPM, Snap, and Flatpak. Most companies and many Linux distros have started making it more difficult for someone to "just download and install from a Web site" because Malware is everywhere. When your OpenSource project includes the scripts to make a proper Debian or RPM package, you dramatically increase the odds of getting your package into the actual distro repos. Does any distro actually put AppImage files in their repo? I'm asking. I have never heard of it but that doesn't mean there isn't some obscure distro doing that. Ubuntu will eventually abandon Snap just like they did UpStart. https://www.phoronix.com/news/MTYwNDE Ubuntu has a history of bad ideas, Unity not even being the worst. In fact, Ubuntu has already started their migration away from Snap by installing Flatpak out of the box in Ubuntu Mate 22.04 https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/02/ubuntu-mate-22-04-flatpak-support Why? Because the Linux distros that matter, some of them YABUs themselves have all integrated Flatpak. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/02/ubuntu-mate-22-04-flatpak-support You have to understand where it is going to understand why. Arch based distros tried to solve this problem in their own way years ago. The Linux world demands a single trusted vetted repository. Then Linux can seriously be considered for corporate desktops. It already has applications like TextMaker and OnlyOffice, etc. What it doesn't have is a single trusted repository. What the Linux world currently has is a bunch of AGILE "developers" hacking on the fly, trusting automated tests that either test nothing or test the wrong thing, turning stuff into distro specific repos that busts things all over. Ubuntu has pushed out updates that broke all wifi networking for users. If your device couldn't support a hard wired connection you couldn't fix it. Core run-time like C/C++ major changes or the not that long ago SSL change trash things. I've argued for decades that DOS didn't do it wrong. Everything bound into a single executable was the only way to maintain security and stability. Here now we have the Linux world trying to not admit shared libraries (forced out of necessity in the dual floppy days) were always a bad idea. A high risk shortcut to resource limitations. The Linux, Windows, and MAC worlds refuse to fix the problem. They keep dynamically linking and an update that should have no impact on your application what-so-ever shoots it out of the saddle by replacing one of your required libraries with an incompatible version. Snap wasn't the correct idea. Flatpak is. It's basically a better Docker and now many distros are having their graphical application installer use Flathub directly. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/02/ubuntu-mate-22-04-flatpak-support This will increase, not decrease, as the cost and effort each distro incurs trying to find "volunteers' to be "maintainers" and physically maintaining their repo has gotten too high. Why do you think there are so many YABU distros? Someone wants a new distro for something, they want stability, and they only want to change a few things (usually packaged applications) for their distro. That's how Linux Mint and so many others happened. The Linux world is moving towards Flathub being the one place all applications exist. All of them allowed to be shown in the GUI installers will have been vetted by someone at Flathub and have active malware/virus scans run on them. This is the end to a LibreOffice update jacking your favorite IDE or PDF viewer by installing an incompatible library. It has the hope of security. No offense man, but anybody can get a .whatever URL and post an downloadable package on it. We in the Linux world have been far too trusting and burned too often by that. I know that I don't personally run daily virus/malware scans on the Debian and RPM packages I have posted. I just replace with newer versions often. Nothing says that Russia/China/North Korea/insert-nation-here didn't slip in an plant
Re: [Interest] Official linuxdeployqt ?
On 8/9/22 05:00, Vadim Peretokin wrote: Just to correct some biases here, in my opinion as a software publisher AppImage is still the simplest way for a user to run your app.? To get Mudlet (a FOSS text games client) all you need to do is go to https://www.mudlet.org/download, download the .tar, right-click to extract it and double-click to run.? Not to discount your experience, but I've been in IT almost 40 years now. Not once in my career have I ever used an AppImage. I have used Debian, RPM, Snap, and Flatpak. Most companies and many Linux distros have started making it more difficult for someone to "just download and install from a Web site" because Malware is everywhere. When your OpenSource project includes the scripts to make a proper Debian or RPM package, you dramatically increase the odds of getting your package into the actual distro repos. Does any distro actually put AppImage files in their repo? I'm asking. I have never heard of it but that doesn't mean there isn't some obscure distro doing that. Ubuntu will eventually abandon Snap just like they did UpStart. https://www.phoronix.com/news/MTYwNDE Ubuntu has a history of bad ideas, Unity not even being the worst. In fact, Ubuntu has already started their migration away from Snap by installing Flatpak out of the box in Ubuntu Mate 22.04 https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/02/ubuntu-mate-22-04-flatpak-support Why? Because the Linux distros that matter, some of them YABUs themselves have all integrated Flatpak. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/02/ubuntu-mate-22-04-flatpak-support You have to understand where it is going to understand why. Arch based distros tried to solve this problem in their own way years ago. The Linux world demands a single trusted vetted repository. Then Linux can seriously be considered for corporate desktops. It already has applications like TextMaker and OnlyOffice, etc. What it doesn't have is a single trusted repository. What the Linux world currently has is a bunch of AGILE "developers" hacking on the fly, trusting automated tests that either test nothing or test the wrong thing, turning stuff into distro specific repos that busts things all over. Ubuntu has pushed out updates that broke all wifi networking for users. If your device couldn't support a hard wired connection you couldn't fix it. Core run-time like C/C++ major changes or the not that long ago SSL change trash things. I've argued for decades that DOS didn't do it wrong. Everything bound into a single executable was the only way to maintain security and stability. Here now we have the Linux world trying to not admit shared libraries (forced out of necessity in the dual floppy days) were always a bad idea. A high risk shortcut to resource limitations. The Linux, Windows, and MAC worlds refuse to fix the problem. They keep dynamically linking and an update that should have no impact on your application what-so-ever shoots it out of the saddle by replacing one of your required libraries with an incompatible version. Snap wasn't the correct idea. Flatpak is. It's basically a better Docker and now many distros are having their graphical application installer use Flathub directly. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/02/ubuntu-mate-22-04-flatpak-support This will increase, not decrease, as the cost and effort each distro incurs trying to find "volunteers' to be "maintainers" and physically maintaining their repo has gotten too high. Why do you think there are so many YABU distros? Someone wants a new distro for something, they want stability, and they only want to change a few things (usually packaged applications) for their distro. That's how Linux Mint and so many others happened. The Linux world is moving towards Flathub being the one place all applications exist. All of them allowed to be shown in the GUI installers will have been vetted by someone at Flathub and have active malware/virus scans run on them. This is the end to a LibreOffice update jacking your favorite IDE or PDF viewer by installing an incompatible library. It has the hope of security. No offense man, but anybody can get a .whatever URL and post an downloadable package on it. We in the Linux world have been far too trusting and burned too often by that. I know that I don't personally run daily virus/malware scans on the Debian and RPM packages I have posted. I just replace with newer versions often. Nothing says that Russia/China/North Korea/insert-nation-here didn't slip in an plant something. Today's users and companies are starting to "just use the GUI" to find their applications. Maybe they won't find yours, but they will find something close enough. There are thousands of games, text editors, IDEs, and office packages. Almost all of what you need (perhaps all) can be found on Flathub now. --- The "just copy" conversation. Been a while since I did anything meaningful with Qt because the medical
Re: [Interest] Official linuxdeployqt ?
AppImages are a breeze. For both developer and user. An easy to use Qt-provided tool for that purpose would be fantastic. On Mo, 2022-08-08 at 18:03 -1200, Vadim Peretokin via Interest wrote: > Just to correct some biases here, in my opinion as a software publisher > AppImage is > still the simplest way for a user to run your app. > > To get Mudlet (a FOSS text games client) all you need to do is go to > https://www.mudlet.org/download, download the .tar, right-click to extract it > and > double-click to run. > > It really is that simple; experienced and unexperienced users alike across > many > different Linux distributions make it work. > > Try to replicate that with snap or flatpak - you won't be able to without > messing in the > terminal or relying on distro-specific distribution channels. Nothing beats > AppImage for > a truly distro agnostic image distribution format, and I'm speaking from > having used it > for years to distribute my software. > > BR > > On August 8, 2022, Vadim Peretokin via Interest > wrote: > > On 8/8/22 16:09, Jörg Bornemann wrote: > > > Mitch already pointed you to QTBUG-74940. The biggest question > > > regarding a linuxdeployqt is: what exactly is the deployment format > > > going to be? There's no standard way of deploying Linux applications. > > > There are many. > > > > > > The community contributions create AppImage packages. That seems to > > > be a reasonable choice. Other opinions? > > > > > > Like Roland said, it has to be Flatpak. I haven't seen anyone talking > > about AppImage in years, and Snap is too Ubuntu-specific. > > > > > > windeployqt doesn't package anything though, so should linuxdeployqt? > > macdeployqt only sort of does, with its dmg support. > > > > > > Hamish > > > > ___ > > Interest mailing list > > Interest@qt-project.org > > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest > > ___ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest -- Gruß, Bernhard ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Official linuxdeployqt ?
On 8/9/22 08:03, Vadim Peretokin via Interest wrote: Just to correct some biases here, in my opinion as a software publisher AppImage is still the simplest way for a user to run your app. Yes, it provides a similar experience like macOS app bundles. What linuxdeployqt definitely must offer is copying libs, plugins, asssets etc. into a staging area like the other *deployqt tools. Maybe creating AppImage packages is - like the creation of packages like RPMs - a job for tools like cpack, and we shouldn't bother with it in linuxdeployqt. Even though the code already exists out there. Creation of flatpaks and snaps are way out of scope. Cheers, Joerg ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] Official linuxdeployqt ?
Just to correct some biases here, in my opinion as a software publisher AppImage is still the simplest way for a user to run your app. To get Mudlet (a FOSS text games client) all you need to do is go to https://www.mudlet.org/download, download the .tar, right-click to extract it and double-click to run. It really is that simple; experienced and unexperienced users alike across many different Linux distributions make it work. Try to replicate that with snap or flatpak - you won't be able to without messing in the terminal or relying on distro-specific distribution channels. Nothing beats AppImage for a truly distro agnostic image distribution format, and I'm speaking from having used it for years to distribute my software. BR On August 8, 2022, Vadim Peretokin via Interest wrote: > On 8/8/22 16:09, Jörg Bornemann wrote: > > Mitch already pointed you to QTBUG-74940. The biggest question > > regarding a linuxdeployqt is: what exactly is the deployment format > > going to be? There's no standard way of deploying Linux > applications. > > There are many. > > > > The community contributions create AppImage packages. That seems > to > > be a reasonable choice. Other opinions? > > > Like Roland said, it has to be Flatpak. I haven't seen anyone talking > about AppImage in years, and Snap is too Ubuntu-specific. > > > windeployqt doesn't package anything though, so should linuxdeployqt? > macdeployqt only sort of does, with its dmg support. > > > Hamish > > ___ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
