Re: Offline installer fails

On 01/20/2012 04:53 PM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:50:03 -0600, Yfrwlf wrote:
>> On 01/20/2012 03:26 PM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:12:24 -0600, Yfrwlf wrote:
>>>> On 01/20/2012 10:05 AM, Evan Daniel wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Yfrwlf<[email protected]>    wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/20/2012 07:05 AM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:10:39 +1300, Austin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Originally tried the JavaWebStart installer, and had problems
>>>>>> with disk space. Moved /usr/local to a bigger partition, then
>>>>>> downloaded the offline installer:
>>>>>> http://freenet.googlecode.com/files/new_installer_offline_1405.jar
>>>>>> as per the web site instructions; also the sig file
>>>>>> new_installer_offline_1405.jar.sig which I verified with gpg.
>>>>>> Then ran
>>>>>> 	java -jar new_installer_offline.jar
>>>>>> All went OK until Processing step 2/15, "Setting the Updater up",
>>>>>> which reported "Process execution failed" and asked "Continue
>>>>>> Anyway?". I continued, but every step after that failed.
>>>>>> Cleared out the target directory and tried again, same result.
>>>>>> Can't find any installation log, is there one somewhere?
>>>>>> Grateful for any suggestions as to what to try next.
>>>>>> System is Debian Linux 2.6, amd64 (Intel i7 870), 8GB RAM.
>>>>>> Java OpenJDK 1.6.0_18
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Side note: Why isn't there a debian package for freenet yet?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well with the only dependency being Java I could understand why
>>>>>> there are no packages.  If there needed to be though it should be
>>>>>> Zero Install so that it's cross-distro and cross-platform.
>>>>> Using Zero Install won't make it so I can "apt-get install
>>>>> freenet". That needs a Debian package, hosted on the Debian
>>>>> repositories. The request is for a Debian package on Debian
>>>>> repos, not to make it easier to install Freenet on Debian.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evan
>>>> Okay.  Developers would love to not have to spend the time making a
>>>> package for every distro and distro verison though, and running
>>>> "0launch<program's url>" to download and run a program from the
>>>> command line is an option, though not as simple, but hopefully
>>>> after it gets a software store for ZI collections that will become
>>>> an option as well.
>>> The whole point of community distros is precisely to help program
>>> developers in this regard. Gentoo users, for example, maintain a
>>> freenet package completely on their own. It seems like you're
>>> trying to wish away the whole concept of distros. (Actually, trying
>>> to impose your own preferred yet-another-package-manager :p.)
>> Yes, everyone loves re-packaging the same program over and over and
>> over again, tons of fun. :P
>>
>> ZI is a package manager that can run on top of or beside existing
>> package managers because it allows co-existence with other package
>> managers.  You can install it on any distro.  That makes it one of
>> the few cross-distro and cross-platform (Mac, Windows, BSD etc too)
>> package managers out there, and thus much more capable of becoming a
>> real actual god-forbid Linux standard to allow users and developers
>> more freedom to share programs.
>>
>> So, your proposition that it's useless is totally absurd.  Why anyone
>> would go "yessss I have to make 50 billion different packages for the
>> same program because there are no standards!" is totally beyond my
>> comprehension.  There is no actual justification for having multiple
>> formats/standards/managers.  You want to choose one standardized
>> system, and then throw all the features you need into the managers
>> which are compatible with that system. [snip]
>  From my perspective, it is useless. I already have a great package
> manager, and a freenet package. You also don't seem to understand the
> purpose of different linux distributions. The reason you need "50
> billion different packages for the same program", is the same reason
> "50 billion" linux distros exist, and the same reason why having a
> single standard is quite naive and absurd -- people are different.
> (Decentralization and independent testing that distros provide are also
> invaluable.) (Open-source) program developers should not be in the
> business of distribution.
>
> Anywho, the point is there really should exist "apt-get freenet" by
> now. And "0launch freenetwhatever" too :P.
You can have different bundles of software on ISOs, and even programs 
with different default configurations, that's good and I have no problem 
with that.  That has no bearing whatsoever though on having a 
standardized package management solution.  You can have both, at the 
same time.  Different packages are just different file formats.  All 
that is needed is standardizing on either one format, or making the 
package managers compatible with the most common formats.  The problem 
is the existing common formats like DEB and RPM are too stupid and not 
set up right.  They lack the flexibility to be able to do things like 
installing multiple versions of the same library or the same program 
side-by-side, one of the causes of the syndrome of "Thou shalt only 
install ONE version of Firefox!  If you want a newer one, upgrade your 
entire OS!", which is just ludicrous.  The point is, all *sorts* of hell 
is caused because of the Linux packaging mess, and it effects both devs 
and users in harmful ways.  You standardize on an intelligent, 
featureful system, and everybody wins.  The Linux community above all 
others should care about freedom, and standards provide freedom.  Or 
would you rather everyone not be able to communicate with others on the 
Internet because no one can agree on HTML standards?  Just an example of 
how standards, when done right, provide freedom.

-Yfrwlf
_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
[email protected]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:support-request-RdDMkVZAZeuJnvDnx1genB2eb7JE58TQ@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe