[SOLVED] A "software repo/package manager" sticky?

jsbjsb001 · 07-01-2019, 08:57 AM

So while I know there's a typo in the above draft (I forgot to fix it before I posted it), can this be sticky'd ? Does anyone have any comments about it?

Michael Uplawski · 07-02-2019, 03:01 AM

If you talk about package managers + compiling from source, the result is porg. You should mention it somewhere in your article as the referenced sources do not.

http://porg.sourceforge.net/

jsbjsb001 · 07-02-2019, 10:01 AM

I must admit, I'd never heard of "porg" or anything similar before. The things you learn without actually asking hey? But anyway, while I understand your point, and I think it could be added; how and where do you think it should be added into the proposed sticky? And also, what would you call that sort of program?

(I can see what "porg" does to be clear, but I honestly have no idea what that sort of program would be called as far as a "generic" name for that sort of program goes - if you know what I mean)

Michael Uplawski · 07-02-2019, 01:02 PM

Just mention it under the section
“Installing software via package manager's vs from sources”
because the heading is okay, only the mere existence of a package manager for source-code is a contradiction. It is better to resolve that immediately.

Choose the first or the second paragraph, as Porg fits in both, always as kind of an “exception” from the rule. The point is really just that the information is present somewhere; I would make a suggestion but am not a native English-speaker. Having just noticed how I created confusion, again, in another thread, I confide you the task to formulate... and the glory

hazel · 07-02-2019, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Uplawski

Just mention it under the section
“Installing software via package manager's vs from sources”
because the heading is okay, only the mere existence of a package manager for source-code is a contradiction. It is better to resolve that immediately.

What about Gentoo's portage and Crux's prt-get?

Michael Uplawski · 07-02-2019, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazel

What about Gentoo's portage and Crux's prt-get?

Right. I used Gentoo but do not know Crux. I still would put that under the “Compile from Source” topic and not just in the references.

jsbjsb001 · 07-03-2019, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Uplawski

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazel

What about Gentoo's portage and Crux's prt-get?

Right. I used Gentoo but do not know Crux. I still would put that under the “Compile from Source” topic and not just in the references.

From my understanding, and for example; "porg" basically "bridges the gap" between installing from source and the "binary package manager", in that; if I say build and install something from source in say Linux Mint, the "binary package manager" doesn't know anything about the program in question. Which is where "porg" comes in; it will therefore add that program to it's database so if I wanted to uninstall it, I could use "porg" to do that.

But a "source based distro" by it's very nature would already have that situation covered. So by that logic, I'd tend to agree with Michael's idea on how to include "porg" in the proposed sticky.

Thoughts?

jsbjsb001 · 07-05-2019, 01:22 AM

So as a "mini-draft", I can add the following to sticky;

Quote:

Originally Posted by proposed sticky addition (RFC 4.1 - revised final draft v3.2.1)

Installing software via package manager's vs from sources

[existing content here]

A note about managing software that has been installed from source

A problem with installing software from source can be that because you have installed it outside of the package manager, the package manager doesn't know anything about the software's installation. Therefore the package manager in that case cannot "manage" the software's installation, therefore you would need to update or uninstall it outside of the package manager, which would require extra steps. To "bridge" this gap, there are some extra tools such as "porg" you can install, that will record information about that software's installation in a database, simplifying the management of software installed from source rather than the package manager. This would not be an issue in a "source-based distribution" using a "source-based package manager", as this would be the very nature of such distributions, and this situation would be covered in that case.

Any other thoughts?

hazel · 07-05-2019, 06:00 AM

Too wordy! I suggest:

Quote:

A problem with building software from source by hand is that the package manager then knows nothing about it because it was installed independently. Therefore the package manager cannot "manage" the updating or removal of that software. To bridge this gap, there are some extra tools such as "porg" you can install, that will record information about that software's installation in a separate database. This is not an issue in a source-based distribution which uses its package manager to download and build automatically from source.

Michael Uplawski · 07-05-2019, 11:21 PM

✔ Okay

jsbjsb001 · 07-10-2019, 04:34 AM

So is the proposed sticky ok to be sticky'd now?

jeremy · 08-15-2019, 06:13 PM

Thanks for the content, jsbjsb001. I think the question now is, do we want this somewhere like the LQ Wiki where we can continually reference (including linking to specific subsections) and refine it or do we want it as a sticky thread?

--jeremy

jsbjsb001 · 08-16-2019, 05:48 AM

My concern would be visibly, as we would want people to see and read it, even if they still need a helping hand and can't solve their issue(s) by themselves - at least they could have a starting point in that case. As it's not only meant to point people to, it's meant as much to help people at least have a starting point to know how to at least get a basic idea of what their issue(s) could be.

But you do have a point in that; if it's sticky'd, then I don't think there is any way to provide links to the different sub-sections. As links to the different sub-sections within would help someone quickly scroll down to the relevant part of the content for them. So the wiki could be the better option in that case. So I'm not sure given that point. Is there any way to have a link in the forums to a wiki page on LQ? Say for example in the Linux - Software forum and/or the Newbies forum?

jsbjsb001 · 09-03-2019, 05:26 AM

Don't mean to be pushy, rude or anything Jeremy; but wondering if I could get an answer for my post above?

And also, I forgot to ask before, but; how else do you think it should be "refined" if let's say it's better in the LQ wiki?

PS: "visibly" was supposed to read "visibility" in my last post above, sorry about that.

jeremy · 09-10-2019, 11:01 AM

By refined, I mean iteratively improved as things change/updated/etc. The wiki would allow for this in a way that a sticky would not. Thoughts?

--jeremy