Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Software

Installing Everywhere? 62

Posted by Cliff from the putting-the-code-in-all-the-right-places dept.
PlainBlack queries: "Our company has been developing an open source project for a couple years now that has gotten pretty popular. The one thing we haven't yet figured out how to do well is packaging. It seems like every operating system has it's own standards for packaging, and installers, and for each OS we support, we end up adding a lot of time to our packaging process. So my question is, what do all of you do to package your apps? Do you just release source tarballs? Do you manually package your RPMs, EXEs, DEBs, DMGs, BINs, PKGs, [and MSIs] by hand? Do you have an automated build process that creates all the packages? If so, how does it work? Is it available for other developers to use?" There are tons of installers listed on SourceForge, but which one allows the creation of OS packages without too much hassle? Duplicating work, especially software installation procedures, across all supported OSes, is time consuming. Is there an easier way?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Installing Everywhere? More

Installing Everywhere?

Comments Filter:

  • self-extraction (Score:3, Informative)

    by aminorex ( 141494 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @06:22PM (#6475278) Homepage Journal
    A self-extracting installer can be produced for every platform. Unless your application needs to become a part of the platform, it should be isolable, and installation should be as simple as expanding a self-expanding archive. Such archives can be produced for every popular platform. Using dependency=tracking packages is not feasible if you require that your installation model be cross-platform, but that's really no big loss: by including all of the dependencies for each application within the applications own directory, dependency conflicts are effectively eliminated.

    Or you can do it all in Java, and it doesn't matter what your platform is. Webstart rocks these days.

    • Re:self-extraction (Score:3, Interesting)

      by moncyb ( 456490 )

      Please no self extractors. Especially in Linux. In my experience, 90% of the Linux ones never work. I especially love the ones who say "can't install -- need at least version 2.2.x of GNU libc" when I have 2.3.x (which is backwards compatible). Luckily they're usually bash scripts in front of a tarball, so I can just find the start of the archive and untar it. Even though I can do it, it sucks bigtime.

      I also like to know what the package is going to do and what files it will create before it installs. You

    • Or you can do it all in Java, and it doesn't matter what your platform is. Webstart rocks these days.

      ...unless you're on a slow dialup connection and are not in control of the development effort.

      It recently took ~45 minutes to fire up (via Webstart) a Java application that decided it needed the latest version. According to a co-worker who uses that application, "the developers are constantly tweaking that app".
  • ... but why do installs need to happen in a lot of cases? I mean, there are some situations that it's a no-brainer. But why can't a large majority of apps out there just run straight out of what directory they are in?

    As I mentioned in the subject, I'm a little naieve here. The concept of 'installing' software has always baffled me. I think I'm just missing an important bit of info here.

    • why do installs need to happen in a lot of cases?

      Right, when you are installing a complex server side piece of software, using an installer is a no brainer. But for simple apps, installers (on Windows at least) let users ignore where it gets installed to, and create shortcuts for launching it from the Start menu/Desktop/Quicklaunch bar. Next --> Next --> Next --> Finish. Simple. If you weren't using an installer, the process would be extract app to some directory, go to directory, and create sh

      • "Now, you may not have troubles doing this, but there are plenty of non-technical users out there that will. "

        Is that pretty much the reason? So it provides an uninstall path too?

        I can see that. Little surprised I got modded as overrated, though. Then again, I come from the Windows world. Installing apps = bigger registry. Bigger registry = slower Windows. Slower Windows = reinstall once a year. Those of us that'd like to put that reinstall off like apps that don't touch the registry, even to inst
      • So it sounds like the main problem is adding links to the start menu.

        Why not have the program offer to do this when it is first run? The user downloads an executable and it appears on their desktop. They then double-click it and it runs. It examines the start menu and if no link is there it pops up a question asking if you wan to install it. The user can say yes/no/later. If they say yes it adds the startup item.
      • I'll pardon your naivety, but not your spelling :-)

  • Don't Install! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zulux ( 112259 )
    Almost every platform has an X-Windows 'client' - just run around and install the X-Windows client and get it to point to one Application server. Then you just upgrade the Applciation Server and presto - you're done.

    Applications that need to print ar a pain, amung other problems, but if you can get away with it then this works well.

    • Eh, what the fork are ye babbling about?
    • Yes, even Windows, DOS and the MacOS have X servers. I like your point - ssh into the system, launch the app, run it remotely over X Window - hell, that would save a lot of aggravation if everything was run that way - but might make some new company out to be a borg, borg, borg...

      -uso.

  • JAR (Score:2, Interesting)

    by trompete ( 651953 )
    I've seen .JAR files (Java) that worked on every platform. I think it was part of SourceForge's JEdit project.

    • Re:JAR (Score:2, Informative)

      by Scottm87 ( 689558 )
      The concept behind them is fairly simple. Basically, you create a self-executing jar which executes java code which it contains to extract itself. It is basically like a executable zip file.
  • i think the easiest thing to do, is do it the 'rollyourown' way,
    just make a big binary file that on executes checks its enviroment;
    what is my $PATH?, where is my ld.so configured?, am i root?, etc
    then just extract your parts in the correct directories
    if the software is good enough normally the community itself will mail you with packaging offers for various platforms

  • Try Ant (Score:5, Informative)

    by adamy ( 78406 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @06:39PM (#6475377) Homepage Journal

    Seems that there are two ways people go on this.

    1) Put everything into one huge directory. Create all the symlinks and path extensions etc.

    2) Out things in the 'correct' directories (/usr/bin for exectuables, /ur/lib for libraries etc).

    THe first ie easier to install and for the user to find and wipe out. The second is easier for users that have many apps on theri system (especially if config files for $app are in /etc/$app).

    On windows you don't really have that option, but you don't tend to run as many apps from the command line (which is the real reason there is a space in c:\Program Files\) And the tendancy is to put config stuff in the registry.

    Check out Ant. As part of a build process it knows about jars, rpms , cabs and zips. I'll bet there is a taks out there for creating .debs as well. I realize this is a "hand rolled solution" but it is probably the most extansible.

  • Only 2 options. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @06:41PM (#6475393) Journal
    I rather download my win32 programs in .zip format, and unix files in .tar.bz. Thats it, installers are overkill.

    Why do developers force the users to put applications when they don't know the system. How many windows apps install in C: with your program files is on D: or another partition. Stop forcing the users, and make your programs run out of its own directory.

    Just look at how many people only download mozilla in the .zip/.gz formats, so they don't have to mess with the installers? Lots.

    And to top it off, no installer means no extra work get the program out the door. And makes a certain level of support, if they cant unzip the file, they need to pay for your premium support package.

    Final thought, no install script means registry or other files I have to backup on a reinstall. Just give me a directory with .conf/.ini files I can backup. Makes it easy for me to restore the system. Having to restore the entire OS for an application is shitty design. Bad enough in windows I have to take registry snapshots to save the registry keys. In unix symlinks pointing to symlinks just to point to a .conf file in another directory. I think some developers have been sitting in front of their computer too long to know what the real environment of a production system is...

    • Re:Only 2 options. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AnamanFan ( 314677 )
      I don't want to say your reasons are invalid, because they are valid, but you're forgetting the non-l33t users.

      When you're releasing to the general public, you have to make it easy as sin to install. Though all of us here can think unziping a zip/gz file and placing its contents to its home is easy, this goes way beyond 'normal' users. Installers are needed for the general public.

      This is a proplem with the OSS community; in order to be sucessful and adopted, the general public needs to be able to use the
      • The answer is ZIP self-extractors!

        InfoZip (and their WiZ project), PKWARE, Nico Mak (WinZip) all make them, and there are self-extractors for all the various Unices as well. Plus graphical ZIP extractors aren't hard to find either.

        -uso.
    • In unix symlinks pointing to symlinks just to point to a .conf file in another directory.

      I used to think this was stupid, too; like SCO's hellish directory structure. It's invaluable, though, if you find you need to configure a package on a read-only filesystem, like Knoppix, for instance.

    • Re:Only 2 options. (Score:3, Informative)

      by secolactico ( 519805 )
      Why do developers force the users to put applications when they don't know the system. How many windows apps install in C: with your program files is on D: or another partition. Stop forcing the users, and make your programs run out of its own directory.

      That's an easy one. A lot of users aren't even aware of their Program Files directory. Poorly designed installers will default to "c:\program files", but I believe there's a registry key that says where your program files is (after all, the name varies a

      • Re:Only 2 options. (Score:3, Informative)

        by tsvk ( 624784 )

        Why do developers force the users to put applications when they don't know the system. How many windows apps install in C: with your program files is on D: or another partition. Stop forcing the users, and make your programs run out of its own directory.

        That's an easy one. A lot of users aren't even aware of their Program Files directory. Poorly designed installers will default to "c:\program files", but I believe there's a registry key that says where your program files is (after all, the name varies

    • Just look at how many people only download mozilla in the .zip/.gz formats, so they don't have to mess with the installers? Lots.

      What about the people who download it in .exe format, so they don't need to mess with extracting it and setting up shortcuts in the Start menu? (Or because they don't know how to?) I'm sure there are lots of them too.

      And to top it off, no installer means no extra work get the program out the door. And makes a certain level of support, if they cant unzip the file, they need

    • Re:Only 2 options. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by N8w8 ( 557943 )
      If I need an app, and there's a Debian package available, I use that. Later on I can remove the package with a simple apt-get command.
      If there isn't a deb available, and I get the tarball and do the "./configure && make install" thingy, the files end up everywhere in /usr/local, which makes it harder to remove.

      I agree with you that if the packaging isn't done 100% correctly (as often happens with Windows apps), you indeed might get bald because of pulling out your own hair. Fortunately, the obvious
      • If you don't like things being messy in /usr/local/ try stow [gnu.org] -- it helps you maintain a tree of symlinks to individual package trees. So /usr/local/bin would be filled with symlinks pointing to /usr/local/stow/package-0.9/bin/program and so on. You can add a single directory to your PATH and run the "default" versions of things, or specify explicitly a particular version.

        It is also handy for keeping old versions around in case you need to roll back upgrades.

        It's kind of hard to describe, the link abov

  • Easy Package Manager (Score:5, Informative)

    by grotgrot ( 451123 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @06:42PM (#6475396)
    Easy Package Manager [easysw.com] (from the same people who brought you CUPS) solves all your UNIX needs. It can produce a package that is in the native format of each platform, in addition to having its own self extracting GUI installer.

    InnoSetup [jrsoftware.org] on Windows is really good, although some people also swear by NSIS (NullSoft Installer [nullsoft.com] (brought to you by the same people who did winamp.

    • Yes. As Sr. Release Engineer at a major security software company, I used EPM to create all the UNIX packages, which meant Tru64, AIX, HPUX, & Linux (RPM). Beat the hell out of doing everything 4 times. EPM rules. And fortunately, someone else was in charge of the Windows installers, so I didn't have to worry about those. :>
    • Hey, Easy Package Manager looks great. It's comparative table [easysw.com] of existing installer/packager formats is a good answer to this topic. And it even has a FLTK graphical frontend (I love FLTK [fltk.org] for its speed, lack of bloat and beautul API). However, it does not support Windows, which is raher logical from the design point of view.

      But I found a nice list of existing packaging tools [a-a-p.org] at the A-A-P [a-a-p.org] which "makes it easy to locate, download, build and install software. It also supports browsing source code, developing
  • Installing Everywhere? Use InstallAnywhere [installanywhere.com], a cross platform Java installer. Nasty licensing and pricey though.
    • InstallAnywhere has worked pretty well for us [liquidcs.com]. We are using the old version 4.5, standard edition. They are up to 5.5 now I think. If we weren't distributing a Java application I am not sure how worth it IA is though. You have the overhead of a JRE in the installer. They do have a free version BTW. It is called Now!.
      The other thing is Linux users like to just untar their stuff and run it. Installers can be a waste of time. The thing is, it is better to waste the time of a few savy people than to make it d
  • I'm sure there is a need for a mature, full featured, easy to use, cross platform installer that's open source. Unfortunately I don't know of one nor am I capable of creating one right now - although it's a good idea. Most of what you found in your search are installers for MySQL, Apache, PHP, etc. What I do know is that InstallAnywhere [zerog.com] installers always seem to work on whatever platform I'm using (Win, Lin, Mac). They have an unlimited evaluation period and I'm sure you could get some nice extras by pa

  • To install or not to install (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kvorg ( 21076 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @07:02PM (#6475512)
    If you really feel you need to do something original, you could as well not install at all, or use Zero Install [sourceforge.net] (Covered on Sweetcode [sweetcode.org] recently).

    But in general (if you are not running under an interpreter or emulation layer) all applications should install in a compatible way on any system, even when that is quite different from a system to another. So on Unix install in a reloctable directory tree with /usr/local/ as default (bin/, lib/, man/ etc/ etc.), and provide packages for distributions.

    The usual way to do that is to prepare make targets (such as "make debian" and "make redhat" and use the defualt packaging system everywhere. Not that I would know how to do that on Windows...

    You will have to distribute sources or build it yourself on each platform, and that represents the real problem. Getting the make targets right is the easy part - many free software applications contain that, and all distributions come with nice examples.

    (Besides, Debian's Package Builder [debian.org] makes for an excellent multiarchitecture (11!) compilation cluster and should be a good reason to provide and mantain debian packages.)
    • I think you can do make type targets with the MSYS [mingw.org] platform which is a part of the MinGW [mingw.org] projects. People have successfully used it with wxWindows [wxwindows.org] (an awesome crossplatform platform {it is more than just a library}), and I plan on compiling with it this afternoon, or tonight.
  • we have ...

    If you support several platforms then you have to package differently for each and maintain for each. If you have a home grown system like us we have one system that works on all the platforms we support and it is easier to deal with. Basically it is a set of bourne shell scripts to untar our stuff from cd to disk and setup a few things on the system like in teh /etc dir.

  • portability before packaging (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hubertf ( 124995 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @07:20PM (#6475604) Homepage Journal
    Speaking as someone who worked a lot on NetBSD's 3rd party software system, pkgsrc, which today has ~4.000 pkgs:

    It's less important for software to come "pre-packages" properly, but that both the code and the build infrastructure are written with portability in mind in the first stop.

    * Make sure your software compiles on non-i386 non-Linux (don't #include , don't assume /proc is the same on all Systems, don't use clone(2), etc).
    * Make sure it can be relocated (configure --prefix=/foo working properly if you have to use GNU autoconf).
    * Don't assume everyone uses GNU make
    * Don't assume /bin/sh == Bash
    * Don't depend on obscure non-easy to install software components (that again may not be present on non-i386 non-Linux - think Java!).

    If that is done, your software can be added to any 3rd party package systems easily.

    - Hubert

    • Re:portability before packaging (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      HP is giving free accounts to test their hardware/software in it's testdrive program.
      This permits you to test software on linux, *bsd, Tru64, HP-UX, and OpenVms systems.
      Harware available is pa-risc64, alpha, ia32 and ia64.

      I also found a new project that could be interesting to replace autoconf :
      http://sf.net/projects/premk

      Hope this stuff will help :)

  • distro's job (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 18, 2003 @07:22PM (#6475612)
    it's the distro's job to do the binary packaging.

    You should focus on the source code, and work with red hat, debian, gentoo, *bsd, etc to make sure your code is easy enough to compile and for them to package.

  • Some advice for Unix systems (Score:4, Insightful)

    by reynaert ( 264437 ) on Friday July 18, 2003 @07:26PM (#6475637)
    On Unix, I would only create binary packages if:
    • your program has a particular appeal to newbies and it is not included with most distributions,
    • the build procedure is unusually complex, or
    • your program takes ridiculously long to build.
    I think most experienced Unix people are comfortable with building from source, and many people just don't trust third-party packages, as they're often badly packaged or out of date.

    If you decide to do it anyway, one tool that can help you is checkinstall [asic-linux.com.mx]. It monitors the standard make install process and can create several kinds of packages. I doubt the quality of the generated packages is very good though, and you still have to take in account that different distributions have different policies.

    Also, make sure you don't waste effort creating packages for distributions that already include your program. You mention DEBs, but whatever your program is, I'm pretty sure Debian already includes it :)

  • Makeself is nice for Unix. (Score:3, Informative)

    by bruthasj ( 175228 ) <bruthasj@@@yahoo...com> on Friday July 18, 2003 @07:52PM (#6475768) Homepage Journal
    The Loki Installer stuff is pretty sweet: http://www.megastep.org/makeself/ [megastep.org]

    Never used it for windows.
    • Well, the Loki Installer stuff (of which Makeself is a small part) does not have a Windows version, at least just not yet... Though the latest version is portable to most Unix systems, including OSX.
  • Obvious idea seems to me, if it's a massively multiplatform thing, that runs on all sorts of different things from Windows to *nixes to every other thing under the sun:

    Include a script / batch file / EXE / binary / whatever along with a compressed archive inside the main archive:

    ie:

    CoolSoftware-1.0.zip

    contains:

    package.tar.bz2
    setup.exe (windows)
    setup.sh (unix)
    INSTALL.EXE (vms) ... so on so forth for each OS ...

    then your install program figures out what the heck to do with
  • If you must release binaries, do it in the Slackware format. They're just tarballs with install scripts. Everyone's got tar.
  • Release a zip and a tar.gz, and let them figure the rest out!

  • Why "install" at all. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by baadfood ( 690464 )
    I am a great fan of software that you simply extract into a directory, and run from there. Ideally, any further installation would be done by the application itself when it is run and detects that its being run for the first time.
  • I have used GNU autotools on the projects that I've worked, whether my own or started by someone else.

    There's a feature of GNU autotools that lets you make dist to roll a tarball of your package. Very easy, very neat and you don't have to worry about installers when you send source code.

  • Vim's author, Bram Moolenaar, is working on a multi-platform software installer/maintainer called AAP [a-a-p.org]. It's still young, but might be what the OP is looking for.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember the good old days, when CPU was singular?

Close