AppImage

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AppImage

Rainer Stratmann
Take a look at

https://appimage.org/

Is this possible for Freepascal and Lazarus?
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Michael Van Canneyt


On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Rainer Stratmann wrote:

> Take a look at
>
> https://appimage.org/
>
> Is this possible for Freepascal and Lazarus?

Yes, of course. It's even quite easy for vanilla FPC apps.

It's nothing but a zip with the needed dependencies. A vanilla FPC app
doesn't need any libraries (unless you link them in). I imagine that for
Lazarus it's also quite easy, since the needed libs are known.

I suspect the idea is taken from MacOS, where apps are bundled in a similar
way.

Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Darius Blaszyk
In reply to this post by Rainer Stratmann
Take a look at

https://appimage.org/

Is this possible for Freepascal and Lazarus?

Though I'm not able to help you, it seems to be similar to https://www.docker.com/. Though docker apps can run on other platforms like windows and mac as well.

Rgds, Darius

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Graeme Geldenhuys-6
In reply to this post by Michael Van Canneyt
On 2018-01-15 20:54, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> It's nothing but a zip with the needed dependencies.

More precisely, they use a standard ISO image that gets loop mounted.
Simply rename any *.AppImage application with a .iso extension and you
can examine the directory structure and content.

This is nothing new really. Linux has had many such attempts over the
years. Anybody remember AutoPackage, Zero Install and others? I think
Snappy from Canonical was the last attempt at this. None of them took
hold in the community at large. I don't really know why - I have always
thought "app bundles" was a good idea. Maybe 10th time lucky - after
all, this is the year of Linux. ;-)


> I suspect the idea is taken from MacOS, where apps are bundled in a similar
> way.

Yeah, it looks or sounds similar, but like I said, this was done a few
times before on Linux already.


Regards,
   Graeme

--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/

My public PGP key:  http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Free Pascal - General mailing list
Am 16.01.2018 00:50 schrieb "Graeme Geldenhuys" <[hidden email]>:
On 2018-01-15 20:54, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
It's nothing but a zip with the needed dependencies.

More precisely, they use a standard ISO image that gets loop mounted. Simply rename any *.AppImage application with a .iso extension and you can examine the directory structure and content.

This is nothing new really. Linux has had many such attempts over the years. Anybody remember AutoPackage, Zero Install and others? I think Snappy from Canonical was the last attempt at this. None of them took hold in the community at large. I don't really know why - I have always thought "app bundles" was a good idea. Maybe 10th time lucky - after all, this is the year of Linux. ;-)

Maybe because each app will have its own dependencies, thus duplicating code.
Also if you have different versions of dependencies they might access shared global configuration in incompatible ways.
Not to mention that if there is a (security) bug in one dependency you need to update all apps containing the bugged library instead of merely the library (that is if you can easily find out that an app contains that library). 
So, yeah, I'm definitely skeptical about such approaches. 

Regards, 
Sven 

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Rainer Stratmann
Am Dienstag, 16. Januar 2018, 07:51:27 schrieb Sven Barth via fpc-pascal:
> Maybe because each app will have its own dependencies, thus duplicating
> code.
> Also if you have different versions of dependencies they might access
> shared global configuration in incompatible ways.
> Not to mention that if there is a (security) bug in one dependency you need
> to update all apps containing the bugged library instead of merely the
> library (that is if you can easily find out that an app contains that
> library).
> So, yeah, I'm definitely skeptical about such approaches.

For me the andvantage of the easy installation is higher.

You can leave the base Linux system as it is.

But if you want to install a hand full of special Apps you can do it fast.
If there is a security bug, then (easy) update your hand full of Apps.

If I make an App I do it always in a separate directory with minimum
dependencies. So you have it easy and a have good overview of the needed app
and data files.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Graeme Geldenhuys-6
In reply to this post by Free Pascal - General mailing list
On 2018-01-16 06:51, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
> So, yeah, I'm definitely skeptical about such approaches.

All valid points. But if it was such a big concern, then why was Apple
happy to go with it. Maybe the concern is not so bad. As for bigger apps
(due to bundled dependencies).... That might have been a concern years
back, but nobody seems to care now about large apps. Hell, even websites
are now 5+MB per page downloads (massive JavaScript libraries, huge
high-res images etc). View a few pages and you have downloaded some 50MB
easily.

Regards,
   Graeme

--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/

My public PGP key:  http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Michael Van Canneyt


On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:

> On 2018-01-16 06:51, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
>> So, yeah, I'm definitely skeptical about such approaches.
>
> All valid points. But if it was such a big concern, then why was Apple
> happy to go with it.

I think because Apple's base system is very stable and well controlled.
In the linux world, this is not so. The challenge is therefor bigger.

Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Rainer Stratmann
In reply to this post by Graeme Geldenhuys-6
Am Dienstag, 16. Januar 2018, 19:41:38 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:

> On 2018-01-16 06:51, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
> > So, yeah, I'm definitely skeptical about such approaches.
>
> All valid points. But if it was such a big concern, then why was Apple
> happy to go with it. Maybe the concern is not so bad. As for bigger apps
> (due to bundled dependencies).... That might have been a concern years
> back, but nobody seems to care now about large apps. Hell, even websites
> are now 5+MB per page downloads (massive JavaScript libraries, huge
> high-res images etc). View a few pages and you have downloaded some 50MB
> easily.

Yes.

This is a very understandable constructive propagation. Everyone who can think
right, especially from the view of a user should say, yes it is easy and good.

And yes, memory is enough there today. Since some years already.

My way is always a separate directory with all in it and an entry application.

And the key is to try to generate as less dependencies as possible.

Better less functionallity but almost working and extensible than an
obstructive dependency.

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Graeme Geldenhuys-6
On 2018-01-16 20:08, Rainer Stratmann wrote:
> And the key is to try to generate as less dependencies as possible.

Yup! Welcome to my world.... [see fpGUI Toolkit].  ;-)

Regards,
   Graeme

--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/

My public PGP key:  http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Free Pascal - General mailing list
In reply to this post by Graeme Geldenhuys-6
Am 16.01.2018 20:41 schrieb "Graeme Geldenhuys" <[hidden email]>:
On 2018-01-16 06:51, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
So, yeah, I'm definitely skeptical about such approaches.

All valid points. But if it was such a big concern, then why was Apple happy to go with it. Maybe the concern is not so bad. As for bigger apps (due to bundled dependencies).... That might have been a concern years back, but nobody seems to care now about large apps. Hell, even websites are now 5+MB per page downloads (massive JavaScript libraries, huge high-res images etc). View a few pages and you have downloaded some 50MB easily.

Because here Apple simply enforced it. This won't work in the more diverse Linux world where users are more free to decide. 

Regards, 
Sven 

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Rainer Stratmann
Am Dienstag, 16. Januar 2018, 22:41:34 schrieb Sven Barth via fpc-pascal:
> This won't work in the more diverse
> Linux world where users are more free to decide.

But if you take a closer look at this (diverse) that is some kind of pseudo
free and decide.

It would be technical no such problem to make some compatibility between the
distributions. I am not deep in the KDE and Gnome development, but I wonder
why it is not possible to make compatibility between them. That prevents a
progress which is long overdue. Instead of they are fighting against each other
who has the better window manager.

Also it is not a lack of choice if you put for example two distributions in
one and make it possible to behave either like distro1 or distro2 by a
checkbox. Or better to make it behave like distro1 and distro2. I guess that
would be also technical possible.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Graeme Geldenhuys-6
In reply to this post by Free Pascal - General mailing list
On 2018-01-16 21:41, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
> Because here Apple simply enforced it. This won't work in the more diverse
> Linux world where users are more free to decide.

I fully agree. And explains why all previous attempts and such "app
bundles" have not succeeded in the Linux space.

Regards,
   Graeme

--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/

My public PGP key:  http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Graeme Geldenhuys-6
In reply to this post by Rainer Stratmann
On 2018-01-16 22:00, Rainer Stratmann wrote:
> Instead of they are fighting against each other
> who has the better window manager.


And that is what I love, and why we have such great Linux desktop
environments. Competition drives innovation. Just compare it to the cr*p
Windows 10 interface or MacOS interface. At one stage the latter two
were all about consistency, Human Interface Guidelines across the board
etc. Now they are the most inconsistent environments of all, and by far
the most bland and uninspiring! Yes, I work on FreeBSD, Windows and
MacOS on a daily basis, so it is very easy for me to compare them all.

Linux package managers have made great strides in easing the
installation of software. I always felt "app bundles" could be an
addition to that, but it seems most of the community don't agree. Then
again, things evolve over time, so maybe there is a possibility this
time round.

Regards,
   Graeme

--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/

My public PGP key:  http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AppImage

Free Pascal - General mailing list
In reply to this post by Rainer Stratmann
Am 16.01.2018 22:58 schrieb "Rainer Stratmann" <[hidden email]>:
Am Dienstag, 16. Januar 2018, 22:41:34 schrieb Sven Barth via fpc-pascal:
> This won't work in the more diverse
> Linux world where users are more free to decide.

But if you take a closer look at this (diverse) that is some kind of pseudo
free and decide.

It would be technical no such problem to make some compatibility between the
distributions. I am not deep in the KDE and Gnome development, but I wonder
why it is not possible to make compatibility between them. That prevents a
progress which is long overdue. Instead of they are fighting against each other
who has the better window manager.

KDE and Gnome use two completely different toolkits, namely Qt and GTK, so if course they aren't compatible to each other. Same for other like Enlightenment and what else is there. And then there are users like me who *only* use a window manager and no desktop environment at all. 


Also it is not a lack of choice if you put for example two distributions in
one and make it possible to behave either like distro1 or distro2 by a
checkbox. Or better to make it behave like distro1 and distro2. I guess that
would be also technical possible. 

But there aren't just two distributions. There are many. And if one would do what you suggest then we would simply have one more distribution. Not to mention that it isn't as simple as you make it out to be. Let's take Debian and Gentoo or ArchLinux for example. The first is a very stable release and updates are checked and checked again before they're added to packages while the other two are rolling releases close to the bleeding edge of the upstream software and on Gentoo also compiled to the user's wishes. Combining these two... well... worlds would essentially look like this: namely a selection of the one or the other during boot with maybe a shared data partition. 
Thus nothing gained here either. 

The world of Linux distributions is simply too diverse for something like this. Everyone simply picks the distro one likes best and we're done. 

Regards, 
Sven 

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal