Poll: Should we implement AppImage for Linux builds? #3767
Comments
|
Should be rather easy as electron-builder can produce AppImages natively. |
|
Thanks for chiming in @probonopd. And congrats on the project :) |
|
I'm OK with .appimage . It has worked easily for the other two programs that I use that come that way. BTW, I'm on Ubuntu. |
|
We should verify if AppImage provide meets security requirements for blockchain applications (opensource + tamper proof). |
|
I used the .deb. Worker perfectly for me in Ubuntu 18.04 (beta). Disappointed to not find .deb in latest version. |
|
I don't like this idea, are all the issues with 32bit systems? Are legacy system users really the most important demographic? Taking away this deb is going to annoy a lot more people than the few on 32bit legacy systems that can figure out how to manually install it anyway. Maintain the .deb and maybe add a .rpm. I don't understand why you don't have an official PPA so that this can stay up to date with the rest of my system. AppImage sounds bloaty, and bloaty isn't very sexy. Secure automatic updates with the native package manager would be very sexy.. How are we supposed to update now that we installed with the deb previously? You tease us with a .deb one release then just take it away.. :( |
Are you talking about verifyable facts here or are you just guessing blindly? |
|
I didn't make any guesses, I just described what it sounded like. I really don't care if the package is twice as large but I want it to work with my native package manager. I don't think this is too much to ask from a serious software project. |
|
@jlmargason there are examples where the AppImage is actually smaller than a normal installation. Think of AppImage like what is known as a "portable application" on Windows or an |
|
I understand how it works, I'm a Linux Engineer. The fact that there is no installation is the issue. I want the software be installed on my system and conform to the XDG standard. Using AppImage is great for systems that the .deb packages won't work on, and I'm sure many other edge cases, but I don't think it should be the official delivery strategy for all Linux systems. |
|
I think that the amount of work required to maintain both .appimage and .deb is within the means of the team. The two are really for different purposes and having an installed deb package that is kept up to date with the rest of the system is an important benefit for some users and system administrators. |
|
My 2 cents worth: Used .deb version on Ubuntu 17.10 without problems. |
|
how am I supposed to update to 0.10 now that I had previously installed by .deb? |
|
@alexstaj Just uninstall the deb version (or don't!), download the 0.10 and run it via the program file. (Ubuntu 17.10) |
|
Linux Mint 18.3 64 bit, no issues with .deb. Seems like the barrier to entry is lower with a .deb or .rpm, IMHO. |
|
Agreed. If it's easy please release a deb in addition to appimage or until
appimage is available.
also will the appinage be able to use my exsting chain downloaded with the
deb and just continue where it left off?
…On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 12:31 Chip Kreis ***@***.***> wrote:
Linux Mint 18.3 64 bit, no issues with .deb. Seems like the barrier to
entry is lower with a .deb or .rpm, IMHO.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3767 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC3vBQ_8zAw4oe-rWVVPcBciMVC0IAEmks5tjl3vgaJpZM4SyJBX>
.
|
|
@alexstaj it looks like that is all in the .ethereum directory within your home directory. |
|
I think if you want for people to start thinking in the appimage, just release that appimage package. If not, you should have released the .deb |
|
I just wanted to say as a Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Linux user I definately prefer a managed software installation (via a package manager) which is also easily updateable rather than just a standalone executable binary. I think it would be good if a .deb package was still released until an alternative installation package has been decided/implemented for platforms that curently have no issue/s with .deb. Maybe for now it just needs to be clear which platforms have known problems with .deb releases? Any chance a .deb package can be released for version 0.10.0? |
|
It's not either-or. AppImage and deb are addressing very different use cases. |
|
Alright, I'm closing the poll. That was a fruitful discussion. We'll do our best to provide a We're still interested in provide a portable and more universal linux installation, so that may come after the .deb is resolved. |
|
@probonopd assuming your last comment is addressed to me, yes understood, as I say I just prefer some form of software 'package' than just a standalone executable binary. @evertonfraga thanks for the reply around trying to provide a .deb release for 0.10.0 |
|
Any ETA for the .deb files corresponding to the 0.10.0 release? I would like to update my system, but I definitely prefer to wait for those .deb to keep it all nice and tidy. A Ubuntu PPA (and a Debian repo) would be much handy. As @jlmargason points out, using your distro's package manager is the best way to keep your system secure and up-to-date. Native package support for other distros, such as Fedora and Arch, can probably be achieved with your current build system or using something like SUSE's Open Build Service. |
|
A bit late to the discussion but I maintain an unofficial Flatpak version of Mist for Flathub. |
AppImages can use Firejail and AppImageUpdate. |
|
Why get rid of the .deb file before you have a replacement in place? To remove the .deb option while you're still thinking about what to do next? That was a mistake as that left many people stranded. Any ETA on that 0.10.1? |
|
Pretty annoyed that the .deb was removed without having a valid replacement available. The packaging issues that have been linked at the start are architecture related issues. Such as in #3313 the user is checking libappindicator1 and being told that the x64 (default) version is installed, ignoring the need for the i386 version, and then trying to install Mist:i386 The use of a PPA or correctly configured repository should resolve these issues. Nonetheless, if AppImage supports wins this poll, I would strongly suggest ensuring reproducible builds are available. |
|
Is there any ETA on the .deb file that was supposed to be coming shortly? It's been over a month and I'd love to be able to update my installation. |
|
Create .deb package and nothing else! Also add it to the official repositories ( Debian & ubuntu ). |
|
now that the .deb has vanished and that there is no appimage, how are linux users supposed to upgrade their broken old versions and get access to their eth? |
|
I had some personal issues to take care of and was out for a while – I apologize. Let me know of anything linux related. |
|
@evertonfraga no need to apologize. Personal and family should always come first :-) Thank you for reinstating .deb support. One successful upgrade on Ubuntu 18.04 here 👍 |
|
@evertonfraga Thanks. Installed and running smoothly on Ubuntu 18.04 +1 |
and others
Users have reported numerous (1, 2, 3) dependency issues while using our
.debbundling format.We can get rid of the
.debissues altogether by migrating to a self-contained app model that does not require installation. It also works with several distros, making available to Fedorians, Arch-ians and so on."Download an application, make it executable, and run! No need to install. No system libraries or system preferences are altered. Can also run in a sandbox like Firejail"
https://appimage.org
Please use reactions (👍 👎), comments are allowed.
Thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: