[Pkg-ROX-devel] ROX-Lib2 & more

[Torsten Marek]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Francesco Paolo Lovergine schrieb:
> On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 12:24:51PM +0200, Torsten Marek wrote:
> 
>>I've tried it out, and it works as it should, which makes it difficult for us.
>>Right now, it doesn't even check if ROX-Lib2 is installed on the system
>>somewhere, it just downloads it from the web. I did not have time to look into
>>the source code, so I'm not sure whether it's possible to provide a system-wide
>>override.
>>It creates the dirs ~/.cache/0install.net/{implementations,interfaces}
>>In interfaces, a config file is saved, specifying urls and dependencies for
>>application packages, code is saved in implementations. If we *would* want to
>>support zeroinstall injector, then the software would have to be modified to
>>allow system-wide installations (which are then Debian packages). However, if
>>there is a new version of any program, 0install might not be allowed to download
>>it, since this would break the consistency between systen and user. Only for rox
>>apps not packaged by Debian this would be allowed.
>>This is the problem because 0install solves a problem Debian already has solved.
>>I slightly doubt that the 0install maintainers would be willing to accept our
>>patches, since it goes against their philosophy and cripples their project.
>>
>>Thus, I see two options:
>>* leave it at rox-filer, be happy that rox.sf.net has a (quite good) Debian
>>package for zeroinstall and ignore the rest. Debian users can then use the rox
>>infrastructure (with AddApp and so on)
>>* create packages for ROX-Lib2 and the most important ROX apps (which would be a
>>handful, and no Debian user might want to install a ROXified version of a normal
>>program) and ignore zeroinstall. Still, if somebody doesn't like that solution,
>>he/she can ignore the debs and use zeroinstall.
>>
>>Uploading zeroinstall-injector, as you said, might violate policy, since it
>>provides another install mechanism for software besides apt/dpkg (which is not
>>impossible, see the extensions of Firefox).
>>
>>
> 
> 
> If 0install would not compromise general configuration and system-wide
> contents it would be ok. IMHO that implies a per-user-only setup, which
> is exactly what firefox extensions provide.
> 
It doesn't, since there is no system-wide content, AFAIK, not even ROX-Lib2.

best regards

Torsten

- --
Torsten Marek <shlomme at gmx.net>
ID: A244C858 -- FP: 1902 0002 5DFC 856B F146  894C 7CC5 451E A244 C858
Keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDPrxAfMVFHqJEyFgRAunoAJsGaM41ZM5drMccvyr+Ejx71ZcpUQCfbt4R
5iZ/iT7tZ0aujMlr0IXEG8U=
=XhqR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----