Apt Repositories For Pandora

[Creature XL]

Believe me - we did think A LOT about APT and package management.

I am sure you did.

- On the SD Cards, there is NO package managements. You either unzip it there yourself or some installer will download it and unzip it for you. The PXML files inside the archives make sure it's added automatically to the right places.

Short question: will there be an easy option to have it check for updates in the archive? So we don't have to browse the archive and check for ourselfs?

 

[Tor]

If every package is self-contained, this would mean that an application uses its own copy of every library it uses. (With the possible exception of 'core' libraries that are presumed to always be available somewhere on the NAND). That'll completely bloat the memory footprint of the applications.

Self-contained packages, non-application-manager based systems, even ipkg based systems - they were OK, I guess, for old, small handhelds. (I've used a Zaurus.) But having owned a Nokia tablet I've completely left that way of thinking. Whatever you may imagine, the Pandora will be much more like a normal computer than you think. I for one will never go back to non-managed systems: I'll stick to APT as far as the Pandora is concerned. If that means I'll have to simply ignore the whole Ångström-based setup, so be it. Zip files? No way! It's a mess installing such things on a desktop computer, it'll be a mess on the Pandora.

 

[cosam]

Just thought I would point out that I've proposed a design for a basic package management system over on the development forum here. This basic idea is to stay compatible with the .zip/PXML format whilst providing extensions for dependency tracking and handling removable media. If people are interested in the technical implementation and/or have ideas how it should all work, please check out the linked thread.

 

[adamorjames]

If every package is self-contained, this would mean that an application uses its own copy of every library it uses. (With the possible exception of 'core' libraries that are presumed to always be available somewhere on the NAND). That'll completely bloat the memory footprint of the applications.

Self-contained packages, non-application-manager based systems, even ipkg based systems - they were OK, I guess, for old, small handhelds. (I've used a Zaurus.) But having owned a Nokia tablet I've completely left that way of thinking. Whatever you may imagine, the Pandora will be much more like a normal computer than you think. I for one will never go back to non-managed systems: I'll stick to APT as far as the Pandora is concerned. If that means I'll have to simply ignore the whole Ångström-based setup, so be it. Zip files? No way! It's a mess installing such things on a desktop computer, it'll be a mess on the Pandora.

+1
So, basically people who want to do stuff the Windows-like way can have a slow system. :lol:

 

[Tor]

Just thought I would point out that I've proposed a design for a basic package management system over on the development forum here.


SteveM: I'm definitely listening..

 

[bigtruck]

If the reason we just use simple zips rather than a package manager is to accomodate people who have only ever used Windows and think "Package management? That sounds complicated...", then I'm sorry but that's absolutely ****ing stupid. Chances are if you're buying a Pandora you're at least moderately computer literate. If you can install programs in Windows, you're more than capable of learning basic use of a package manager. It might take half an hour or an hour or whatever, but over the lifetime of the Pandora you'd gain that time back many times over by not having to manually check for updates and install packages. Seriously, the Pandora uses Linux, not Windows. Why would we throw out one of the main benefits of Linux just to accomodate people who are stuck doing things "the Windows-like way"?

 

[Squidge]

I'll stick to APT as far as the Pandora is concerned. If that means I'll have to simply ignore the whole Ångström-based setup, so be it. Zip files? No way! It's a mess installing such things on a desktop computer, it'll be a mess on the Pandora.
I think your missing the point that 95+% of Pandora apps will not require any libraries, and thus any dependancies. The only way zip files will be a mess on Pandora is if you try and save a couple of meg of space on your sd card because you want all the libraries seperate, rather than leaving them with the application, which can easily be fixed by static linking.

Oh, and Beagle uses Ångström, Pandora uses Ubuntu.

Short question: will there be an easy option to have it check for updates in the archive? So we don't have to browse the archive and check for ourselfs?
One of the goals is to be able to notice all new packages in the archive, as the archive will send you PXMLs from a certain id onwards. Installers can then easily say "Hey, package xyz has been updated! Install now?".
QUOTE
If every package is self-contained, this would mean that an application uses its own copy of every library it uses. (With the possible exception of 'core' libraries that are presumed to always be available somewhere on the NAND). That'll completely bloat the memory footprint of the applications.
That argument is becoming boring now, everyone states the same argument, completely ignoring the reasons why we don't think it's a good idea.

 

[Etinin]

I really find it regrettable that the dev team would choose the easy solution instead of the logical and efficient one.
But then we're dealing with Free Software, and I'm certain that I'm not the only one who would be interested in making a Debian-based distribution so we can use apt. The first thing I'll do when I receive my Pandora will be to install a distribution with real package management and repackage all the interesting packages as they become available if the lame zip system will be used.

I'll stick to APT as far as the Pandora is concerned. If that means I'll have to simply ignore the whole Ångström-based setup, so be it. Zip files? No way! It's a mess installing such things on a desktop computer, it'll be a mess on the Pandora.
I think your missing the point that 95+% of Pandora apps will not require any libraries, and thus any dependancies. The only way zip files will be a mess on Pandora is if you try and save a couple of meg of space on your sd card because you want all the libraries seperate, rather than leaving them with the application, which can easily be fixed by static linking.

Oh, and Beagle uses Ångström, Pandora uses Ubuntu.

Short question: will there be an easy option to have it check for updates in the archive? So we don't have to browse the archive and check for ourselfs?
One of the goals is to be able to notice all new packages in the archive, as the archive will send you PXMLs from a certain id onwards. Installers can then easily say "Hey, package xyz has been updated! Install now?".
QUOTE
If every package is self-contained, this would mean that an application uses its own copy of every library it uses. (With the possible exception of 'core' libraries that are presumed to always be available somewhere on the NAND). That'll completely bloat the memory footprint of the applications.
That argument is becoming boring now, everyone states the same argument, completely ignoring the reasons why we don't think it's a good idea.

Wrong, the Ubuntu was just to show the Pandora's abilities.
The official distribution will be based on Angström. If they changed their minds and made an ubuntu-based distribution, the first thing I'd do would be to boot from an alternate OS on my SD and type dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda

 

[Squidge]

It might take half an hour or an hour or whatever, but over the lifetime of the Pandora you'd gain that time back many times over by not having to manually check for updates and install packages. Seriously, the

Which would most people prefer, spend 30 minutes to an hour learning to use a package manager, or just throwing it on the sd card and being up and running within minutes?

Pandora uses Linux, not Windows. Why would we throw out one of the main benefits of Linux just to accomodate people who are stuck doing things "the Windows-like way"?

The Windows-like way also happens to be the most popular for a reason - ease of use.

Wrong, the Ubuntu was just to show the Pandora's abilities.
The official distribution will be based on Angström.

Err, no. I'm one of the Pandora devs. I should know what distribution is being used

 

[Etinin]

Perhaps we should make a poll to see which way is more popular...
I'm not so sure a majority that big as some people seem to think would vote for easy zips (if those people are even a majority at all).

And if you guys decided to use a distro which I find rather stupid and even removed its most important feature which is apt, then I guess I'll just copy the kernel (plus the binary blobs) and immediately erase ubuntu from the NAND. But if I recall properly, there was an official announcement saying that Angstrom would be used.

 

[Squidge]

If they changed their minds and made an ubuntu-based distribution, the first thing I'd do would be to boot from an alternate OS on my SD and type dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda

That is of course, your choice.

Perhaps we should make a poll to see which way is more popular...
I'm not so sure a majority that big as some people seem to think would vote for easy zips (if those people are even a majority at all).

There's really no need for that - it's pretty much set in stone now (besides, it already happened in the past).

 

[bigtruck]

It might take half an hour or an hour or whatever, but over the lifetime of the Pandora you'd gain that time back many times over by not having to manually check for updates and install packages. Seriously, the

Which would most people prefer, spend 30 minutes to an hour learning to use a package manager, or just throwing it on the sd card and being up and running within minutes?

That would be exactly my point. You have to learn how to use a package manager once. I don't know about the rest of Pandora users, but I'm planning on installing more than one app on my Pandora...
QUOTE

Pandora uses Linux, not Windows. Why would we throw out one of the main benefits of Linux just to accomodate people who are stuck doing things "the Windows-like way"?

The Windows-like way also happens to be the most popular for a reason - ease of use.

I have to disagree here. The Windows-like way only seems "easy" because that's what people are used to. I defy anyone to spend some time with a linux distro and tell me that pacman -Syu or apt-get whatever (I don't use debian) is more complicated and time consuming than manually finding which programs are out of date and downloading and installing each one separately.

 

[TaG]

What exactly goes into one of these zips (I know roughly)? If someone wants to try an Ubuntu/Debian Armel app, how do you you get the app, libs, dependancies etc, package them and use it? Are there anticipated to be so many apps packaged this way that "an average user" won't go looking for more?

I'm certain I've missed something obvious (which is why I'm asking), but this seems harder than apt-get install.

I do remember comments some while back that all apps would need porting to Pandora. Is this still true with the latest incarnation of the OS/firmware, and therefore when porting one might as well create the zip?

 

[Etinin]

What exactly goes into one of these zips (I know roughly)? If someone wants to try an Ubuntu/Debian Armel app, how do you you get the app, libs, dependancies etc, package them and use it? Are there anticipated to be so many apps packaged this way that "an average user" won't go looking for more?

I'm certain I've missed something obvious (which is why I'm asking), but this seems harder than apt-get install.

I do remember comments some while back that all apps would need porting to Pandora. Is this still true with the latest incarnation of the OS/firmware, and therefore when porting one might as well create the zip?

That's not really true.
Lots of apps have ARM ports and most desktop apps might need some porting if they make some nasty assumptions, but porting them would be relatively easy.
All the apps will need to be packaged for the Pandora, though, as the devs don't want to use a well-established packaging system like DEB or RPM.

With Debian Armel, you'd just have to type apt-get install *something* and as long as it's in the repository, it will be installed without further problems. The devs argue that not everyone would have an internet connection and some special system would have to be created to manage packages, as we're dealing with removable media.

 

[AireTamStorm]

/All/ Of these issues can be solved with an SD card union mounted on top of the root filesystem. Take the SD card, it takes EVERYTHING with it, including the copy of the db. One card can be used for applications and libraries, the other, for data.

I don't know about you, but the last time I had a package management database corruption / out of sync issue was two years ago on a known-to-be-buggy SuSE installation. I've never had it happen since with RPM and never seen it period with APT.

Problem with using Ubuntu is that it may end up being too big of a distro for performance usage and applications from the standard distro may not work on it. I shouldn't have to reboot into a secondary OS on a handheld. The very notion is silly.

The GP2X way of doing things is a headache. With WiFi and fully capable hardware, your install base shouldn't be forced to do it any particular way with the Pandora. We are coming to you with the concerns we have. I ask that the package management it is there by default. You don't even have to use it. The developers can pick to use ZIPs, and a 3rd party can package them into neat little packages for the power users. Is there really a problem with this suggestion? Including APT on the firmware shouldn't even be a problem.

 

[Squidge]

I have to disagree here. The Windows-like way only seems "easy" because that's what people are used to. I

Exactly. Ease of use is doing what people are used to, and thats exactly what we are doing. People want to get it out of the play and play with it, they don't want to spend the first hour reading online manuals.

defy anyone to spend some time with a linux distro and tell me that pacman -Syu or apt-get whatever (I don't use debian) is more complicated and time consuming than manually finding which programs are out of date and downloading and installing each one separately.
Actually, finding out which programs are out of date will be done by the installer. No need to do it yourself. So, for example, if you install a SNES emulator, it can tell you when a newer version is uploaded to the archive.

 

[bigtruck]

Eh, I suppose I'm more or less appeased. Finding out of date packages is certainly nice, even if you have to manually update them. There also seems to be enough interest in having a package manager that a community-maintained one seems probable.

That being said, I still think catering to the lazy and/or making things more of a hassle in the long run just so it's easier for people to get up and running as fast as possible is a bad idea.

 

[Tor]

I think your missing the point that 95+% of Pandora apps will not require any libraries, and thus any dependancies.

95% won't require any libraries? What kind of magic applications are these? Written totally from scratch, not using a single graphic library (be that qt, gtk, opengl, whatever)? Talk about bloatware. Presumably you are talking about game emulators or some such. In any case, I think you will find that on the Pandora 95% of the software will be totally normal software, i.e. they all use a lot of libraries, starting with libc.
QUOTE

The only way zip files will be a mess on Pandora is if you try and save a couple of meg of space on your sd card because you want all the libraries seperate, rather than leaving them with the application, which can easily be fixed by static linking.

This is not at all about saving space on an SD card. I think you're missing the point completely. For example, if you just unpack a zip file, how are you supposed to remove that piece of software? Without a package manager? (And no, I don't think 'remove manually, file-by-file' is a good argument. That's messy on a desktop, that'll be messy on Pandora.)

The point about libraries is that I of course want every application which uses lib X to use _the same copy of lib X_. Exactly as what happens on any non-insane Linux installation everywhere. That way I can run e.g. a browser, a game, a mapping application, an email client at the same time, and there's still just a single copy in memory of the libraries they have in common.

QUOTE

QUOTE
If every package is self-contained, this would mean that an application uses its own copy of every library it uses. (With the possible exception of 'core' libraries that are presumed to always be available somewhere on the NAND). That'll completely bloat the memory footprint of the applications.
That argument is becoming boring now, everyone states the same argument, completely ignoring the reasons why we don't think it's a good idea.

As you can see I made the same argument again, and I'm totally baffled as to why that would not be a good idea. The only time it wouldn't matter is if you want to run only a single program at a time, at all times. If that's so then I can't see why you would want something as powerful as the Pandora to begin with.

 

[sindbad]

QUOTE

QUOTE
If every package is self-contained, this would mean that an application uses its own copy of every library it uses. (With the possible exception of 'core' libraries that are presumed to always be available somewhere on the NAND). That'll completely bloat the memory footprint of the applications.
That argument is becoming boring now, everyone states the same argument, completely ignoring the reasons why we don't think it's a good idea.

As you can see I made the same argument again, and I'm totally baffled as to why that would not be a good idea. The only time it wouldn't matter is if you want to run only a single program at a time, at all times. If that's so then I can't see why you would want something as powerful as the Pandora to begin with.

This is the strongest argument yet and there may indeed be problems down the line. I just don't get why the devs don't want a package manager, with the necessary modifications for removable storage. Again, apt-walkabout is something in this direction.

 

[mechanizeddeath]

Interesting points from both sides, and this is one of the few arguments where I really can't make up my mind on which side I stand. That alone proves to me that both sides have very valid points. I'll be fine with the .zip system, but package management would be nice.

My first experience with package management was nothing short of epic. Having come from the Windows world, where installing software, drivers, and updates meant juggling driver discs, download URLs, and .zip files, it was amazing to be able to use apt to get what i needed to. The simplicity of using apt-get or aptitude to install and maintain my system was so much better than having to go to a dozen different websites to get the drivers and apps to make my Windows installation work. And that's not even counting the hassle of navigating some manufacturer websites, avoiding adware bundles, and the horrifying event of an unwanted toolbar install. I don't see the Windows way as being easy at all, familiar to most perhaps, but certainly not easy.