On 01/20/2012 04:53 PM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:50:03 -0600, Yfrwlf wrote:
On 01/20/2012 03:26 PM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:12:24 -0600, Yfrwlf wrote:
On 01/20/2012 10:05 AM, Evan Daniel wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Yfrwlfwrote:
On 01/20/2012 07:05 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:10:39 +1300, Austin wrote:
Originally tried the JavaWebStart installer, and had problems
with disk space. Moved /usr/local to a bigger partition, then
downloaded the offline installer:
http://freenet.googlecode.com/files/new_installer_offline_1405.jar
as per the web site instructions; also the sig file
new_installer_offline_1405.jar.sig which I verified with gpg.
Then ran
java -jar new_installer_offline.jar
All went OK until Processing step 2/15, "Setting the Updater up",
which reported "Process execution failed" and asked "Continue
Anyway?". I continued, but every step after that failed.
Cleared out the target directory and tried again, same result.
Can't find any installation log, is there one somewhere?
Grateful for any suggestions as to what to try next.
System is Debian Linux 2.6, amd64 (Intel i7 870), 8GB RAM.
Java OpenJDK 1.6.0_18
(Side note: Why isn't there a debian package for freenet yet?)
Well with the only dependency being Java I could understand why
there are no packages. If there needed to be though it should be
Zero Install so that it's cross-distro and cross-platform.
Using Zero Install won't make it so I can "apt-get install
freenet". That needs a Debian package, hosted on the Debian
repositories. The request is for a Debian package on Debian
repos, not to make it easier to install Freenet on Debian.
Evan
Okay. Developers would love to not have to spend the time making a
package for every distro and distro verison though, and running
"0launch" to download and run a program from the
command line is an option, though not as simple, but hopefully
after it gets a software store for ZI collections that will become
an option as well.
The whole point of community distros is precisely to help program
developers in this regard. Gentoo users, for example, maintain a
freenet package completely on their own. It seems like you're
trying to wish away the whole concept of distros. (Actually, trying
to impose your own preferred yet-another-package-manager :p.)
Yes, everyone loves re-packaging the same program over and over and
over again, tons of fun. :P
ZI is a package manager that can run on top of or beside existing
package managers because it allows co-existence with other package
managers. You can install it on any distro. That makes it one of
the few cross-distro and cross-platform (Mac, Windows, BSD etc too)
package managers out there, and thus much more capable of becoming a
real actual god-forbid Linux standard to allow users and developers
more freedom to share programs.
So, your proposition that it's useless is totally absurd. Why anyone
would go "ye I have to make 50 billion different packages for the
same program because there are no standards!" is totally beyond my
comprehension. There is no actual justification for having multiple
formats/standards/managers. You want to choose one standardized
system, and then throw all the features you need into the managers
which are compatible with that system. [snip]
From my perspective, it is useless. I already have a great package
manager, and a freenet package. You also don't seem to understand the
purpose of different linux distributions. The reason you need "50
billion different packages for the same program", is the same reason
"50 billion" linux distros exist, and the same reason why having a
single standard is quite naive and absurd -- people are different.
(Decentralization and independent testing that distros provide are also
invaluable.) (Open-source) program developers should not be in the
business of distribution.
Anywho, the point is there really should exist "apt-get freenet" by
now. And "0launch freenetwhatever" too :P.
You can have different bundles of software on ISOs, and even programs
with different default configurations, that's good and I have no problem
with that. That has no bearing whatsoever though on having a
standardized package management solution. You can have both, at the
same time. Different packages are just different file formats. All
that is needed is standardizing on either one format, or making the
package managers compatible with the most common formats. The problem
is the existing common formats like DEB and RPM are too stupid and not
set up right. They lack the flexibility to be able to do things like
installing multiple versions of the same library or the same program
side-by-side, one of the causes of the syndrome of "Thou shalt only
install ONE version of Firefox! If you want a newer one, upgrade your
entire OS!", which is just ludicrous. The point is, all *sorts* of hell
is caused because of the Linux packag
