View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
February 20, 2013
Re: The DUB package manager
On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 03:52:12 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
>
> Incidentally, the "MUST_CLONE_MACOSX",
> "MUST_TAKE_CONTROL_AWAY_FROM_USER" just happen to also be the 
> exact same
> reasons I'm fed up with all forms of Windows post-XP. I'll never
> understand why so many people have been so obsessed with 
> cloning an OS
> that's never even managed to reach double-digit market share. 
> It's like
> trying to clone the Ford Edsel: Why? Even if some people like 
> it,
> they'll just use the real thing anyway.

Since we're getting further OT I'll just mark this
[OT]
With MS I see it as a marketing attempt to keep as many users 
with windows as possible, because Apple had been getting many 
users with their "we're different" approach. Combine that with 
the fact that the normal PC/Laptop-market has been slowly going 
into decline ever since the rise of the tablet-hype (and there 
doesn't seem to be an end in sight for that) the facts seem to be 
to me that a lot of the "common" people these days use their 
computers for to things: Youtube and Facebook (and derivates 
thereof), maaaybe newssites as well.
And since Apple were the ones who succesfully pushed for feasible 
commercial tablets (not the first, but the ones who started the 
hype) their OS more or less became "the design to be or to be 
close to in mobile computing", hence everyone with a lot of money 
invested in OS design tries to copy them.
At least that is how I see the developments of the recent years^^
[/OT]


>
> With Linux, when I outgrew Ubuntu I went upstream to Debian. 
> Seemed the
> most sensible choice given their close relationship and my 
> Ubuntu
> familiarity. I've had my eye on Mint, but, I dunno, it seems a 
> little
> too "downstream". And like I said, I'm starting to keep an eye 
> on Arch
> now too.
>

Another potention Archlinux user GET *evil laugh*.

>
> Ahh, thanks for all the info :)
>
> As for the X11 stuff, that's still more manual than I'd like 
> when it
> comes to X11. (Like I said, I've had *BIG* problems dealing 
> directly
> with X11 in the past.) But I may give it a try. I'm sure it's 
> improved
> since the nightmares I had with it back around 2001/2002, but I
> still worry *how* much improved... Heck, I've even had X11 
> problems as
> recently as Ubuntu 10.
>

Ah, okay, that's strange but I can understand that. The only 
problems I ever had with X was that I had to add an InputClass to 
the evdev file because evdev otherwise kept refusing to enable 
USB mice(s).

>
> No prob :) But I don't think OS-package-managers are evil (like 
> I've
> said, I like "apt-get install" *when it works*). It's just that 
> I
> think it's patently absurd when people claim that 
> OS-package-managers
> are the *only* good way to go and that there's no good 
> legitimate
> purpose for language-based OS-independent stuff. As long as 
> they're
> OS-dependent there will always be legitimate reasons for
> alternatives.

Ah, your previous posts sounded a bit like that, but I just read 
too much into them, then, I guess. I just hope either one of dub 
or orbit gets succesfully adopted as the standard D package 
manager, or that they're going to be compatible with each other 
in some way. I'd hate to see something (even remotely) similar to 
the initial phobos/tango breakup happening again (I was quite 
suprised that the language as a whole was able to survive that).
February 20, 2013
Re: The DUB package manager
On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 09:55:30 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
> So do you.
>
> There, that was constructive ;)

Well, at least I have tried both of approaches, both as user and 
as maintainer. I really can't understand how you can state that 
OS package managers do not work if you have not even tried 
packaging.

> Don't twist my words around. I never said anything about not 
> learning
> the OS package manager.
>
> The issue is, if I'm going to do the same thing on multiple 
> systems,
> there's no reason it can't be doable the same way, and there's 
> no
> benefit to having it be completely different.

Why it is the issues? Obsession with "same way" is as harmful, in 
my opinion, as obsession with being cross-platform. You always 
want to take care about OS specifics, why hide them anyway? There 
is no benefit in using same command everywhere.

> So yea, I could install DMD, for example, a totally different 
> way on
> different systems, but why should I when I can just do "dvm 
> install
> xxxxx" on *all* the systems?

Because you can be somewhat certain then that dependencies are 
taken care of right, file location does not interfere with your 
filesystem layout, no garbage will be left upon uninstall etc. 
Because it is a waste of resources to implement a new mature 
package manager for each new language when one already exists for 
target platform.

> And to top it off, imagine trying to do that as part of a bigger
> script.

Build scripts that install stuff instead of you are evil. This 
bigger script should provide dependency list you or your package 
manager can take care of. Irrational coupling of functionality is 
evil, too.

> Why do you prefer making extra work for yourself? Some 
> puritanical
> ideal of "If I'm on x OS I *have* to use the stuff that only
> works there"? And don't tell me it's because you don't want to 
> have
> to learn a few extra trivial commands, because you're doing 
> *plenty* of
> complaining here about how completely ridiculous you think it 
> is to
> avoid learning a few more easy commands. (Nevermind that you're 
> also the
> only one who's actually objected to having to learn commands, 
> in the
> same post nonetheless.)

You rarely learn something just because you can (unless you have 
a lot of spare time). There should be some benefit, some reason. 
Especially when this news stuff does something that is already 
perfectly done by existing and known stuff. Especially when this 
new stuff attempts to hide from you something that you really 
need to take care of.

> If you're just going to resort to obvious hyperbole, there's no 
> point
> in dealing with you.

It is an analogy, not hyperbole and I am quite serious about it. 
Personal insults does not help.
February 20, 2013
Re: The DUB package manager
Since the discussion about yes or no regarding OS specific package
managers still goes on, IMO there is one argument that is far more
important than all technical or aesthetic aspects.

A language specific, but cross-platform, package manager makes
publishing and using published libraries a lot simpler for /developers/.
And since D wants to grow, it's extremely important to provide new
developers with the most comfortable and efficient development
experience, so that they also stay and get productive after the first looks.

I think that package managers in Ruby, Python, JavaScript/node.js were
crucial in their growth. Without them, they probably wouldn't have that
rich ecosystem of libraries and tools that is available today and is one
of the key reasons why so many people choose those languages.

Implementing an export function to turn a D package into a variety of
platform specific package formats is a possible option that could close
the gap and make installing applications also comfortable for the end user.
February 20, 2013
Re: The DUB package manager
On 2013-02-20 11:32, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
>> As for the X11 stuff, that's still more manual than I'd like when it
>> comes to X11. (Like I said, I've had *BIG* problems dealing directly
>> with X11 in the past.) But I may give it a try. I'm sure it's improved
>> since the nightmares I had with it back around 2001/2002, but I
>> still worry *how* much improved... Heck, I've even had X11 problems as
>> recently as Ubuntu 10.
>>
>
> Ah, okay, that's strange but I can understand that. The only problems I ever had
> with X was that I had to add an InputClass to the evdev file because evdev
> otherwise kept refusing to enable USB mice(s).
>

Diving deeper into the OT...
Not strange at all. I had similar experiences around 2001 when I bought a new 
immitation-of-ATI GFX card -- first there were no drivers for it and, when they 
finally showed up (proprietary and others), after weeks of configuring Xorg, I 
still couldn't make 3d acceleration work and ended up without it for the next 
few years. Not only Xorg are a problem. Even today I can't fire up the newest 
Ubuntu install CDs without the screen going blank. That's how bad things are 
with X and even framebuffer console. So I am not surprised hearing about 
problems in this domain.

As for package managers, I'm fine with using the OS ones for almost everything 
and Python's own system for its extra modules (only because I consider it an 
ecosystem of its own). Still, I compile some programs and libs myself (when 
their most current version is required), but only when they aren't a dependency 
for something I wouldn't want to compile on my own.

I am still not convinced why D would need a package manager. Why not use a 
standardized build script with dependency checks or just use CMake like 
everybody else does?
February 20, 2013
Re: The DUB package manager
On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 11:12:30 UTC, Sönke Ludwig 
wrote:
> Since the discussion about yes or no regarding OS specific 
> package
> managers still goes on, IMO there is one argument that is far 
> more
> important than all technical or aesthetic aspects.
>
> A language specific, but cross-platform, package manager makes
> publishing and using published libraries a lot simpler for 
> /developers/.
> And since D wants to grow, it's extremely important to provide 
> new
> developers with the most comfortable and efficient development
> experience, so that they also stay and get productive after the 
> first looks.
>
> I think that package managers in Ruby, Python, 
> JavaScript/node.js were
> crucial in their growth. Without them, they probably wouldn't 
> have that
> rich ecosystem of libraries and tools that is available today 
> and is one
> of the key reasons why so many people choose those languages.
>
> Implementing an export function to turn a D package into a 
> variety of
> platform specific package formats is a possible option that 
> could close
> the gap and make installing applications also comfortable for 
> the end user.

I agree. In the end, you need developers before you can have 
end-users!

Also, developers often want to micro-manage the experience the 
end-user gets, including installers etc...

Look at python. Python has good package management, but it only 
gets used by developers. No end-user reaches for pip/easy_install 
to get the dependencies for Blender and no-one will, it all gets 
taken care of by OS-level package managers or is bundled with the 
installer. The end user of a piece of software should never have 
to know what language it is written in or have to get in involved 
in that languages own ecosystem.

End-users need language-agnostic and OS-specific, developers 
often benefit best from the opposite.
February 21, 2013
Re: The DUB package manager
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:47:28 +0100
FG <home@fgda.pl> wrote:

> On 2013-02-20 11:32, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
> >> As for the X11 stuff, that's still more manual than I'd like when
> >> it comes to X11. (Like I said, I've had *BIG* problems dealing
> >> directly with X11 in the past.) But I may give it a try. I'm sure
> >> it's improved since the nightmares I had with it back around
> >> 2001/2002, but I still worry *how* much improved... Heck, I've
> >> even had X11 problems as recently as Ubuntu 10.
> >>
> >
> > Ah, okay, that's strange but I can understand that. The only
> > problems I ever had with X was that I had to add an InputClass to
> > the evdev file because evdev otherwise kept refusing to enable USB
> > mice(s).
> >
> 
> Diving deeper into the OT...
> Not strange at all. I had similar experiences around 2001 when I
> bought a new immitation-of-ATI GFX card -- first there were no
> drivers for it and, when they finally showed up (proprietary and
> others), after weeks of configuring Xorg, I still couldn't make 3d
> acceleration work and ended up without it for the next few years. Not
> only Xorg are a problem. Even today I can't fire up the newest Ubuntu
> install CDs without the screen going blank. That's how bad things are
> with X and even framebuffer console. So I am not surprised hearing
> about problems in this domain.
> 

Back with ~2001 Mandrake (and also the RedHat from the same era), I
would have a fresh OS install, everything would work fine at first, but
then after a few days, X11 would inexplicably just...not start. At
all, not even manually. And for no apparent reason - I hadn't touched
or messed with anything even related. Only thing I was able to figure
out that actually worked, even with plenty of Googling, was yet another
fresh reinstall. And then a few days later it would just happen again,
totally out-of-the-blue.

Between that and various other Linux issues at the time (For example,
nothing comparable to today's apt-get existed), I ended up giving up on
Linux entirely for the next ~7 years after. Most things are a lot
better now, though. I was genuinely surprised/impressed at some of the
improvements when I tried it again around Ubuntu ~9.
February 21, 2013
Re: The DUB package manager
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:32:34 +0100
"Moritz Maxeiner" <moritz@ucworks.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 03:52:12 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
> wrote:
> >
> > Incidentally, the "MUST_CLONE_MACOSX",
> > "MUST_TAKE_CONTROL_AWAY_FROM_USER" just happen to also be the 
> > exact same
> > reasons I'm fed up with all forms of Windows post-XP. I'll never
> > understand why so many people have been so obsessed with 
> > cloning an OS
> > that's never even managed to reach double-digit market share. 
> > It's like
> > trying to clone the Ford Edsel: Why? Even if some people like 
> > it,
> > they'll just use the real thing anyway.
> 
> Since we're getting further OT I'll just mark this
> [OT]
> With MS I see it as a marketing attempt to keep as many users 
> with windows as possible, because Apple had been getting many 
> users with their "we're different" approach. Combine that with 
> the fact that the normal PC/Laptop-market has been slowly going 
> into decline ever since the rise of the tablet-hype (and there 
> doesn't seem to be an end in sight for that) the facts seem to be 
> to me that a lot of the "common" people these days use their 
> computers for to things: Youtube and Facebook (and derivates 
> thereof), maaaybe newssites as well.
> And since Apple were the ones who succesfully pushed for feasible 
> commercial tablets (not the first, but the ones who started the 
> hype) their OS more or less became "the design to be or to be 
> close to in mobile computing", hence everyone with a lot of money 
> invested in OS design tries to copy them.
> At least that is how I see the developments of the recent years^^
> [/OT]
> 

Mobile is where all the buzz is, but I'm pretty sure most computer
usage is still desktop/laptop. Just because tablet hasn't peaked yet
doesn't mean it won't. But, of course, that doesn't mean that MS
necessarily sees it that way. I don't doubt many of them see
Apple's "buzz" and mistake that for overall numbers compared to
desktop/laptop (An area where apple is still doing no better than they
ever have - So I don't know what brain defect made MS decide Win7 needed
to be an OSX clone).

It's a *very* common mistake in the computer world, confusing amount of
buzz with amount of actual usage. For example, a few years ago, from
the way people talked, you would have thought most internet users were
on Second Life. Huge buzz, and yea, enviable raw numbers, but
proportionally still *very* much a niche. Very similar thing today with
the twitface sites. Most people *don't* use them, but try telling any
suit that. They think "buzz == reality".
February 21, 2013
Re: The DUB package manager
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:53:23 +0100
"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 11:12:30 UTC, Sönke Ludwig 
> wrote:
> > Since the discussion about yes or no regarding OS specific 
> > package
> > managers still goes on, IMO there is one argument that is far 
> > more
> > important than all technical or aesthetic aspects.
> >
> > A language specific, but cross-platform, package manager makes
> > publishing and using published libraries a lot simpler for 
> > /developers/.
> > And since D wants to grow, it's extremely important to provide 
> > new
> > developers with the most comfortable and efficient development
> > experience, so that they also stay and get productive after the 
> > first looks.
> >
> > I think that package managers in Ruby, Python, 
> > JavaScript/node.js were
> > crucial in their growth. Without them, they probably wouldn't 
> > have that
> > rich ecosystem of libraries and tools that is available today 
> > and is one
> > of the key reasons why so many people choose those languages.
> >
> > Implementing an export function to turn a D package into a 
> > variety of
> > platform specific package formats is a possible option that 
> > could close
> > the gap and make installing applications also comfortable for 
> > the end user.
> 

+1

> I agree. In the end, you need developers before you can have 
> end-users!
> 

Developers, developers, developers! (and giant arm-pit stains...)

> Also, developers often want to micro-manage the experience the 
> end-user gets,

I really hate that. That's exactly the reason we have so much crapware
(absolutely flooded with it on Windows) that completely disregards any
and all of system settings and convention standards for which they have
enough resources to badly reinvent.

> 
> Look at python. Python has good package management, but it only 
> gets used by developers. No end-user reaches for pip/easy_install 
> to get the dependencies for Blender and no-one will, it all gets 
> taken care of by OS-level package managers or is bundled with the 
> installer. The end user of a piece of software should never have 
> to know what language it is written in or have to get in involved 
> in that languages own ecosystem.
> 

In my admittedly limited experience, pip was almost completely broken.
It would install a few things ok, but for the majority of libs it would
just crap out with a Traceback *during installation*. (I had said
before it was gem, what I'd meant was pip.)
February 21, 2013
Re: The DUB package manager
On Thursday, 21 February 2013 at 11:09:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
> Mobile is where all the buzz is, but I'm pretty sure most 
> computer
> usage is still desktop/laptop.

[OT]
I agree with you there, but in deskop/laptop MS smply doesn't
have to compete at present. Their sales there are currently
guaranteed by the fact that virtually all assembled products
(that aren't Mac) come with Windows preinstalled - and you having
to pay for it, whether you want to or not. There are
alternatives, of course (like build your desktop from parts), but
most people don't use those alternatives.
Anyway, we'll see how it turn out soon enough, away with the
speculations and back to D^^
[/OT]
February 21, 2013
Re: The DUB package manager
On Sunday, 17 February 2013 at 07:23:22 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> You might want to list all the dependencies needed for dub or
>> distribute them in a zip.
>> 
>
> They are in the .zip now and I listed the dependencies on the 
> download
> page. Sorry, the distribution stuff is still very much ad-hoc 
> ATM. I'll
> make some installers once the build process is automated.
>
>> Ah I didn't spot the download link 
>> http://registry.vibed.org/download
>> 
>> I guess this could be made more visible by adding a link to the
>> download page from the github repository, and maybe putting 
>> the { *
>> Using DUB * Download * Publishing packages * Helping developme 
>> }
>> section at the top instead of the bottom.
>
> There now is a link on the github page + a note for non-Windows 
> that
> libevent/libssl are needed. I also added a short sentence how 
> to build
> by hand. The dependencies will also likely change to just 
> libcurl at
> some point with a make file or something to make bootstrapping 
> as simple
> as possible.

Personally, I think that libcurl-only dependency is an important 
goal. Dub's third-party dependencies are far too "modern." For 
example, I have an older Ubuntu instance I use for testing 
(10.10), where libevent 2.x simply isn't available (can't run 
your binary, and can't compile your source).

For Vibe, these may be acceptable requirements, but not for a 
general packaging tool.

I would hope that a future version of Dub wouldn't have any 
dependencies on Vibe, either. That's an odd bootstrapping 
arrangement.

Best,
Graham
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home