Hi,

Some time ago, it was discussed on an LSB face-to-face meeting that an
API should be developed that allows ISVs to install sotware packages
which integrate into the package manager - the "Berlin Packaging API".
While the idea seemed to be well received, there didn't seem much
progress since then, except for a wiki page with a rundimentary proposal
[1]. Considering that third-party software installation is an undeniably
important weak spot of the Linux infrastructure, I found this was a
shame.

To reignite the the initiative, I decided to design and develop a
prototype implementation of the Berlin API, most creatively named the
"LSB Package API". It is designed as a simple D-Bus interface
accompanied with an XML-based package description format. A detailed
description and the source code can be found on this page:

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSB_Package_API

The implementation currently supports integration into RPM and dpkg; due
to its modular nature, support for more package managers could be added
later on.

I hope this implementation will act as a starting point for resurrecting
the Berlin API process. Let us overcome the "Third-party software
installation on Linux sucks" problem and strive to a brave new world of
easily distributable Linux software!

Best regards,
Denis Washington

[1] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Berlin_Packaging_API


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Hi,

Some time ago, it was discussed on an LSB face-to-face meeting that an
API should be developed that allows ISVs to install sotware packages
which integrate into the package manager - the "Berlin Packaging API".
While the idea seemed to be well received, there didn't seem much
progress since then, except for a wiki page with a rundimentary proposal
[1]. Considering that third-party software installation is an undeniably
important weak spot of the Linux infrastructure, I found this was a
shame.

To reignite the the initiative, I decided to design and develop a
prototype implementation of the Berlin API, most creatively named the
"LSB Package API". It is designed as a simple D-Bus interface
accompanied with an XML-based package description format. A detailed
description and the source code can be found on this page:

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSB_Package_API

The implementation currently supports integration into RPM and dpkg; due
to its modular nature, support for more package managers could be added
later on.

I hope this implementation will act as a starting point for resurrecting
the Berlin API process. Let us overcome the "Third-party software
installation on Linux sucks" problem and strive to a brave new world of
easily distributable Linux software!

Best regards,
Denis Washington

[1] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Berlin_Packaging_API

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Denis Washington <dwashington@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some time ago, it was discussed on an LSB face-to-face meeting that an
> API should be developed that allows ISVs to install sotware packages
> which integrate into the package manager - the "Berlin Packaging API".
> While the idea seemed to be well received, there didn't seem much
> progress since then, except for a wiki page with a rundimentary proposal
> [1]. Considering that third-party software installation is an undeniably
> important weak spot of the Linux infrastructure, I found this was a
> shame.
>
> To reignite the the initiative, I decided to design and develop a
> prototype implementation of the Berlin API, most creatively named the
> "LSB Package API". It is designed as a simple D-Bus interface
> accompanied with an XML-based package description format. A detailed
> description and the source code can be found on this page:
>
> http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSB_Package_API
>
> The implementation currently supports integration into RPM and dpkg; due
> to its modular nature, support for more package managers could be added
> later on.
>
> I hope this implementation will act as a starting point for resurrecting
> the Berlin API process. Let us overcome the "Third-party software
> installation on Linux sucks" problem and strive to a brave new world of
> easily distributable Linux software!
>
> Best regards,
> Denis Washington
>
> [1] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Berlin_Packaging_API

How is this different than PackageKit? PackageKit seems to cover the
use case of presenting a comprehensive API and userspace tools to
manage packages consistently across distros. What can the Berlin API
do that PackageKit doesn't do, and doesn't make sense for PackageKit
to do?

-Yaakov

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Denis Washington <dwashington@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some time ago, it was discussed on an LSB face-to-face meeting that an
> API should be developed that allows ISVs to install sotware packages
> which integrate into the package manager - the "Berlin Packaging API".
> While the idea seemed to be well received, there didn't seem much
> progress since then, except for a wiki page with a rundimentary proposal
> [1]. Considering that third-party software installation is an undeniably
> important weak spot of the Linux infrastructure, I found this was a
> shame.
>
> To reignite the the initiative, I decided to design and develop a
> prototype implementation of the Berlin API, most creatively named the
> "LSB Package API". It is designed as a simple D-Bus interface
> accompanied with an XML-based package description format. A detailed
> description and the source code can be found on this page:
>
> http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSB_Package_API
>
> The implementation currently supports integration into RPM and dpkg; due
> to its modular nature, support for more package managers could be added
> later on.
>
> I hope this implementation will act as a starting point for resurrecting
> the Berlin API process. Let us overcome the "Third-party software
> installation on Linux sucks" problem and strive to a brave new world of
> easily distributable Linux software!
>
> Best regards,
> Denis Washington
>
> [1] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Berlin_Packaging_API

How is this different than PackageKit? PackageKit seems to cover the
use case of presenting a comprehensive API and userspace tools to
manage packages consistently across distros. What can the Berlin API
do that PackageKit doesn't do, and doesn't make sense for PackageKit
to do?

-Yaakov


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 13:20 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> How is this different than PackageKit? PackageKit seems to cover the
> use case of presenting a comprehensive API and userspace tools to
> manage packages consistently across distros. What can the Berlin API
> do that PackageKit doesn't do, and doesn't make sense for PackageKit
> to do?
>
> -Yaakov

While the use cases of PackageKit are related to the Berlin API, they
are pretty different. PackageKit is focused on providing a frontend for
managing repository-based package systems, like apt and and yum. It is
mainly thought to abstract installation and upgrades from package
repositories, like when an application likes to install a package with a
particular name from the distro's repos. However, it does not address
the problem of software distribution itself - the repositories and
package files are still specific to the packagaing system.

The Berlin API, on the other side, does exlclusively deal with providing
a package-manager-neutral software distribution method. So the Berlin
API is not a replacement for PackageKit, but a complement. In fact, as
the software installed with the Berlin API is added to the package
system's database, it can be managed (e.g. uninstalled) with PackageKit
afterwards - a dream team!

Regards,
Denis Washington

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 13:20 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> How is this different than PackageKit? PackageKit seems to cover the
> use case of presenting a comprehensive API and userspace tools to
> manage packages consistently across distros. What can the Berlin API
> do that PackageKit doesn't do, and doesn't make sense for PackageKit
> to do?
>
> -Yaakov

While the use cases of PackageKit are related to the Berlin API, they
are pretty different. PackageKit is focused on providing a frontend for
managing repository-based package systems, like apt and and yum. It is
mainly thought to abstract installation and upgrades from package
repositories, like when an application likes to install a package with a
particular name from the distro's repos. However, it does not address
the problem of software distribution itself - the repositories and
package files are still specific to the packagaing system.

The Berlin API, on the other side, does exlclusively deal with providing
a package-manager-neutral software distribution method. So the Berlin
API is not a replacement for PackageKit, but a complement. In fact, as
the software installed with the Berlin API is added to the package
system's database, it can be managed (e.g. uninstalled) with PackageKit
afterwards - a dream team!

Regards,
Denis Washington


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Le samedi 21 juin 2008 à 13:20 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy a écrit :

> How is this different than PackageKit?

It would make possible for ISVs to create packages in a non-native
packaging format, so they don't have to care about the format each
distro uses, or about understanding each distro dependency checks, or
generally speaking wasting time and money on integration and QA.

Of course that's supposing you can actually do good packaging in
non-native formats and the distros won't be left to collect the pieces
afterwards.

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Le samedi 21 juin 2008 à 13:20 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy a écrit :

> How is this different than PackageKit?

It would make possible for ISVs to create packages in a non-native
packaging format, so they don't have to care about the format each
distro uses, or about understanding each distro dependency checks, or
generally speaking wasting time and money on integration and QA.

Of course that's supposing you can actually do good packaging in
non-native formats and the distros won't be left to collect the pieces
afterwards.

--
Nicolas Mailhot

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Denis Washington <dwashington@gmx.net> wrote:
> Some time ago, it was discussed on an LSB face-to-face meeting that an
> API should be developed that allows ISVs to install sotware packages
> which integrate into the package manager - the "Berlin Packaging API".
> While the idea seemed to be well received, there didn't seem much
> progress since then

I dislike that route intensely. Why, I'm not sure. Perhaps
because it encourages ISVs to manage package updates themselves,
perhaps because it smacks of the complexity of Microsoft's MSI.

I'm more interested in the single-click install idea Suse's
working on, since it's much less of an end run around
normal Linux packaging practices. And I have a summer intern
to throw at the problem, so perhaps I'll make some headway on
it.

Can we move followups to packaging@lists.linux-foundation.org rather
than cc'ing all those lists?
- Dan

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Denis Washington <dwashington@gmx.net> wrote:
> Some time ago, it was discussed on an LSB face-to-face meeting that an
> API should be developed that allows ISVs to install sotware packages
> which integrate into the package manager - the "Berlin Packaging API".
> While the idea seemed to be well received, there didn't seem much
> progress since then

I dislike that route intensely. Why, I'm not sure. Perhaps
because it encourages ISVs to manage package updates themselves,
perhaps because it smacks of the complexity of Microsoft's MSI.

I'm more interested in the single-click install idea Suse's
working on, since it's much less of an end run around
normal Linux packaging practices. And I have a summer intern
to throw at the problem, so perhaps I'll make some headway on
it.

Can we move followups to packaging@lists.linux-foundation.org rather
than cc'ing all those lists?
- Dan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org