Confliting requirements


Caine

Hardcore Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
4,138
Location
Netherlands
The argument is true now, but might not be so relevant when the Pyra handheld become available.
I wouldn't bet the design of my software packaging and distribution system on a filesystem which may or may not be stable in the future. Nor would I optimize it for a specific filesystem which users might not want to use.
 

vinipsmaker

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
209
Location
Brazil
Website
vinipsmaker.github.io
The argument is true now, but might not be so relevant when the Pyra handheld become available.
I wouldn't bet the design of my software packaging and distribution system on a filesystem which may or may not be stable in the future. Nor would I optimize it for a specific filesystem which users might not want to use.
Fair.

But people were comparing filesystem usage with and without PNDs. In this case, I think it's relevant to take this in consideration.
 

pmprog

DNF (Did Not Finish)
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
3,970
Code::Blocks, for example, is 1.3GB. It contains all the dev libraries and such.
I think the Code::Blocks PND is very misleading, personally.
Firstly it contains Code::Blocks and QtCreator - two IDE's; then there's a tonne of dev tools, libraries and stuff that I'll (probably) never use. My windows folder of development libraries comes to approx 60MB with documentation, libraries, examples.
 

dimag0g

Very Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
608
Location
Strasbourg, France
Well, that's why suggested to have as many standard libraries as possible into the OS.

Have a meta package for the base installation for the Pyra.

And whenever there's a library that's needed for a new PND that could also be useful for other devs, update the meta-package and the next OS update will include it.

Sure, the dependency lists in the PNDs are a good idea as well and would have a similar result.
Personally, I would prefer a different approach.

1. There is a group of dependencies which are both relatively small and widespread. I'm thinking of zlib, libgl, libssl and the like. These should be included in a metapackage and updated by apt-get. Developers should be discouraged from including these libs in PNDs or statically linking to them, unless a particular app fails to run with up-to-date lib. Libs which are critical to system security (to the point that updating them is practically mandatory) also belong here.

2. Another group of dependencies is widespread but important in size, like java, python, flash, wine (if possible, of course). Also there are packages with distribution policy issues, like codec pack. The user should be able to install these on the system, but do it explicitly. Maybe there could be a possibility to let the user install a certain package on SD (e.g. java) along with PNDs which depend on it. PNDs should include a field telling there is a dependency, so the launcher (both on Pandora and Pyra) could tell what's wrong instead of just failing to run the app. Dependencies themselves could come as .deb packages.

3. Finally, there is a lot of great libraries which could be used by 3-5 PNDs and should be updated from time to time. I believe the best solution is to keep these inside respective PNDs, at a price of having duplicates. Rationale: keep the core system small, stable and predictable. If you include every lib in the core, like ED suggests, there will be (besides obvious bloating) an update every week, and every 5-th update will inevitably break something. Much as you tend to blame the current PND system, it is great because of exactly this approach.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top