Global Aur equivalent - GNU/Linux
Steph
(06-12-2018, 09:12 PM)eduarch42 Wrote: and kind of "chain" them in order to maintain all of them updated.

This sounds nice and all, but it flies in the face of the way packages work. The linuxverse is crazy in that so many distros ship with so many different versions of packages and different packages that depend on other packages.
Did I say packages enough times? its a mess.
jkl
The Linuxers had one standard package management system defined. They could have had it so easy...

Dumb kids.
Dworin
(06-12-2018, 09:12 PM)eduarch42 Wrote: Example: I submit my own window manager to AUR, then a script detects there is a new package in the AUR, and creates a new package for another package manager.
I think that with this solution it will be easier to maintain and more reachable. Because it doesn't involves the creation of another package manager. Only the creation of "mirror" repositories of the AUR.
What do you guys think?

You can probably make some helper scripts but to have unsupervised uploading of untested 'translated' packages to repos doesn't seem like a good idea. You'd still need to build and test on each target distro.

How about a kind of clean chroot system that lets you choose which distro is used for building a package?
z3bra
(06-12-2018, 11:56 PM)Dworin Wrote: How about a kind of clean chroot system that lets you choose which distro is used for building a package?

I had such an idea in mind for an automated packages build.
Start with an empty directory, and install only the dependencies. This way you can ensure that you got all the dependencies right, and that your software is gonna work correctly.

Now to add on top of the cross-distro idea, the best solution would be, IMO, to go with static linkage.
This would make your binaries work on any host with the same architecture, no matter the libc, of libraries installed.
This is also faster to run, and definitely not bigger than say, snap or flatpack "apps", which ship all the full runtime dependencies along with each software.

For the repository, I prefer going with how crux handles it, rather than arch: maintainers host the repositories themselves, instead of pushing to a central repo.
This has the advantage to give more responsibility to maintainers, and prevent orphanage. Web hosting is now cheap, and you could even use online "hubs" to host your port tree like http://repo.or.cz.
z3bra
So is this idea dead already?
Steph
(12-12-2018, 06:38 AM)z3bra Wrote: So is this idea dead already?

I feel like you summed it up well when you described the difficulties of creating such a system.

If such a thing was feasible I would bet it would have already been implemented.
z3bra
(12-12-2018, 11:35 AM)Steph Wrote:
(12-12-2018, 06:38 AM)z3bra Wrote: So is this idea dead already?

I feel like you summed it up well when you described the difficulties of creating such a system.
If such a thing was feasible I would bet it would have already been implemented.

Such a thing already exist, I just didn't want to spoil the idea with pre-made options, to see what we would come up with.
If the idea dies with the first difficulty though, we won't go far indeed :)

Distributed user repositories:
  • https://crux.nu/portdb
  • ???? - some linux ports that can be built on any distro, POSIX shell only (can't remember the name!)

Package manager wrappers / Cross-platform




Members  |  Stats  |  Night Mode  |  Help