Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Friday 24 August 2007 18:24 : \____
>
>> [H]omer wrote:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>> Glick brings better standalone application bundles to Linux
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | Glick allows developers to store an entire program and all of its
>>>> | associated data in a single self-contained ELF executable
>>>
>>> No, no, no, no, no, no ... and *no*.
>>>
>>> Linux is *not* Windows for /a reason/. Lack of self-propagating Malware
>>> is just one of them.
>>>
>>> This is the mother of all bad ideas.
>>>
>>
>> Not necessarily. It is one attempt among others to use the "package"
>> principle of OSX on linux too.
>> Not a way I would prefer to install my apps, but different users, different
>> choices
>
> True.
>
> Other packaging projects such as this already exist. There must be like a dozen
> (or more) separate projects now.
>
If projects were to be statically linked, and then binaries stored in
~/.bin or something like that, with config in ~/.rc, then this could
work, but really only as a single-user system, or for individual users
to install packages which an admin doesn't want to install for
system-wide usage.
I suppose you could store binaries in /usr/local/bin and configs in
/usr/local/etc, but even then, most systems (all?) would require root
access to do this.
A much better approach might be to merge the deb and rpm formats in such
a way that a new generation package could be installed on either type of
system, but I had thought that the LSB project was aiming to address
this?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
