I just finished porting an application from Windows into Linux.
I have to create an installer of the application.
The application is not open source => I should distribute the application's binaries (executable file, couple .so files, help files and images).
I found several methods to do it:
- RPM and DEB packages;
- installer in .sh files;
- Autopackage.
I don't like first method (RPM and DEB packages) because I don't want to mantain different packages for different Linux distros.
What is the best way to distribute a binary application for Linux?
Having been through this a couple of times with commercial products, I think the very best answer is to use the native installer for each supported platform. Anything else produces an unpleasant experience for the end-user, and in practice you have to test on every platform you want to support anyway, so it's not really a significant burden to maintain packages for each. The idea that you can create a binary that can "just work" on every platform out there, including some you've never even heard of, just really doesn't work all that well.
My recommendation is that you pick a platform or two to support initially (Red Hat and Ubuntu would be my suggestions) and then let user demand drive the creation of additional installation packages. Perhaps make it known that you're willing to support additional platforms, for a modest fee that covers your time and effort in packaging and testing on that platform. If a platform proves to be very different, you may need to charge more for ongoing support.
Oh, and I cannot overemphasize the value of virtual machines for scenarios like this. You need to build VMs for each platform you support, and perhaps multiple VMs per platform to make it easy to test different configurations.
There were a lot of good answers (mine included :)) here. Although that is more about binary compatibility (which you do need to worry about).
For installer I would recommend autopackage (we successfully released several versions of our software with it), they did the "installer.sh" part already and more (desktop integration for example).
You have to be careful and test your upgrade scenarios and stuff, depending on how complex you package structure is, but it is pretty neat overall. I fixed few bugs with dependency handling in 1.2.6, so it should be fine.
UPDATE: The original question was deleted, so reposting full answer here, ignore all references to autopackage, that was merged into Listaller, not sure if relevant parts survived.
For standard libraries (like crypto++, pthreads, etc) that are likely to be available in a distribution -- link dynamically and tell users to get them from their distro repository. Or link statically if it is feasible.
For weird libraries that you must control version of (if you want to deploy Qt4 app on territory of enemy gnomes for example), compile them yourself and install into a private spot only your app knows about.
Never install private libs into standard places unless you can be sure to not interfere with package systems of all distros you support. (and that they can't interfere with you either).
Use rpath instead of LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and set it properly for all you binaries and all dlls that reference each other. You can set rpath on you binary to "$ORIGIN;$ORIGIN/../lib;/opt/my/private/libs" and have linker search those places before any standard paths. (have to setsome linker flag for origin to work I think). Make sure to set rpath on your libs too: for example QtGui needs QtCore, and if user happens to install standard package with different version, you absolutely don't want it picked up (exe -> ../lib/QtGui.so (4.4.3) -> /usr/local/lib/QtCore.so (4.4.2) -- a sure way to die early).
If you compile with any rpath, you can change it later with chrpath, thus making it possible to tweak install location as part of post processing or install script.
Maintain binary compatibility. GLIB_C is pretty much static for your users, so you should link against some sufficiently old version. 2.3 is a safe bet. You can use APBuild -- a gcc wrapper that enforces GLIB_C version and does few other binary compatibility tricks, so you don't have to compile all you apps on a really old distro.
If you link to anything statically, it generally will have to be rebuilt with APBuild too, otherwise it is bound to drag newer GLIB_C symbols. All .so's you install privately will naturally have to be built with it too. Sometimes you have to patch third party libs to use older symbols. (I had to patch ruby to return real permissions instead of effective ones, since there is no such functions in older GLIB_C. Still not sure if I broke anything :)).
For integration with desktop environments (file associations, mime-types, icons, start menu entries, etc) use xdg-utils. Beware though, like everything on linux they don't really like spaces in filenames :). Make sure to test those things on each target distro -- xdg implementations are riddled with bugs and quirks.
For actual install you can either provide variety of native packages (rpm, deb and a few more), or roll out your own installer, or find installer that works on all distros bypassing native package managers. We successfully used Autopackage (same people who made APbuild) for that.
It's possible to install an RPM on Debian and an APT on RHEL.
If you are going to statically link this program, or dynamically link only with libraries that you will be distributing in the package, then it doesn't much matter how you distribute it. The simplest way is tar.gz and that would work.
OTOH if it is dynamically linked with system libraries, and particularly if it has dependencies on dynamic libraries that will be shared with the client's other applications, then you kind of need to do either RPM, APT, or both.
You may want to try out InstallBuilder. It is crossplatform (runs on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris and nearly any other Unix platform out there). It is used by Intel, Motorola, GitHub, MySQL, Nokia/Trolltech and many other companies so you will be in good company :) In addition to binary installers, it can also create cross-distro RPMs and DEB packages.
InstallBuilder is commercial, but we offer free licenses for open source programs and very significant discounts for mISVs or solo-developers, just drop us a line.
Create a .tar.bz2 archive with the binary, then publish a feed for it, like this:
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<interface uri="http://mysite/myprog.xml"
xmlns="http://zero-install.sourceforge.net/2004/injector/interface">
<name>MyProgram</name>
<summary>what it does</summary>
<description>A longer description goes here.</description>
<implementation main='bin/myprog'
id="sha1new=THEDIGEST"
version='1.0'>
<archive href='http://mysite/myprogram-1.0.tar.bz2'
size='10000'/>
</implementation>
</interface>
Sign it with your GPG key. You can use the tools on 0install.net to calculate the digest and add the GPG signature for you in the correct format.
Then, put it on your web-site at the address in the uri attribute. Any user on most Linux distributions (e.g. Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, Gentoo, ArchLinux, etc) can then install and run your program with:
0launch http://mysite/myprog.xml
Their system will also check for updates periodically. There are various GUIs for the different desktop environments, but the command-line will work everywhere.
Also look at some of the existing feeds for inspiration.
I tell you an additional possibility, although I am not aware of its status: the Loki installer. Loki was a company doing videogames porting for Linux. It went down in 2002, but the installer is available.
InstallShield is also available for linux. No idea on the status though.
Although many people are proposing you to go with tar.gz, please don't. I assume you want to provide a pleasant experience for the installation procedure to your users. A tar.gz is one of the most low level, low quality, low usability choices you can do. It works everywhere because it does basically nothing, as you know.
The guys at freedesktop.org and the LSB are quite clear on where to put stuff. What you need is a friendly program to do that. Autopackage imho has the numbers (I love it), but despite its age, I haven't seen a single program out there distributed as an autopackage.
Evaluate it carefully, but don't skip the chance of being part of the momentum in favour of it, just because it's not popular. If it works for you, and it works for your users, everything else does not matter.
There is no best way (universally speaking).
tar.gz the binaries, that should work.
Today, I would also look at Snapcraft and Flatpak which are embraced by some popular distributions. I explored other options and it is what ended up working best for me. Flatpak in particular also helped me learn about standard Linux desktop conventions to follow.
You may also want to look at AppImage (https://appimage.org/). The concept is that it produces a single binary file that the user downloads, sets executable, and runs directly; no installation necessary, no dependencies to install (since the app image typically includes all the dependencies except basic stuff like glibc). This makes for a really great user experience!
Some downsides:
The image may be large, since it probably includes all files/libraries/... the app depends on.
As the image creator, you're responsible for security updates to any of the libraries you add into your image.
An AppImage is great for a user-run application that's pretty isolated from anything else on the system (i.e. daemons, system configuration, etc.), but if your app relies on things like udev integration, desktop file installation, dbus registration, etc. this isn't easy, since the apps files aren't available when the app isn't running (making udev rules hard), and there is by definition no installer that gets run (making desktop file installation hard).
I've also looked into this at work and I'd have to agree there really isn't a "best way". If your application is being distributed as source then I'd go with the make/configure methods packaged up in a tar.gz. That seems fairly universal in the Linux world.
A good way to get an idea of what to do is to look at larger organziation and see how they distribute their binaries.
Related
I cannot call myself an absolute beginner in go, and I'm definitively not an expert.
Today, I noticed something VERY confusing. I was experimenting with Unix sockets and Windows named pipes, and from my research, there are 2 packages that support Windows named pipes:
https://github.com/natefinch/npipe
https://github.com/Microsoft/go-winio (I could not find ANY documentation, help, how-to-use, whatsoever about this package)
My OS is Linux, and I decided to give it a go: go get the package(s), and write the code to later test on a Windows machine, but, to my surprise, at least in VSCode, those packages are not recognized by the tooling.
When I look at npipe for example, I see it only has npipe_windows.go, which, if I'm not mistaken, is supposed to automatically be used on Windows.
So, I think there is the concept of OS-specific packages in Go, right? And if so, does it mean that I cannot use, for example, VSCode's go tools to code against Windows packages on Linux?
That, in my opinion, would be extremely inconvenient to have to switch systems in order to write something that works both on Linux and Windows... Although I guess that's only true if we're developing on Linux, and Windows should cover both.
But for me, it doesn't make sense NOT to be able to develop something on Linux; the best environment to develop on IMHO (except Apple-related code of course)
Am I missing something here?
Thank you
So, I think my question actually involves more the tooling rather than the go language itself. gopls is the tool used by VSCode if you choose to use the go language server.
As thre README says, it's in alpha and not stable, and there are known issues listed on the repo, which seem to be the source of my confusions.
I think the main issue that's related to what I'm seeing is:
x/tools/gopls: does not handle build tags
I recently started exploring npm and installed a github repo yoonic/nicistore.
But when I try to build it fails.
My question is if I start building things on top of node, which I see has tooo many dependencies from different vendors, Am I completely on the mercy of the respective package developers?
I have seen that most node based github repos fail to build in the first try. If I update one of the modules by running a console command, Is it likely to break all the application?
And if It is does, doesn't it prove node.js an unreliable and unstable development platform?
Think of it as the opposite of most other languages.
You are writing an app in Java.
You want to use LibA, LibB and LibC.
So you try to use LibC 2.4, and as soon as you do, your manager throws all kinds of errors at you.
Why?
Because LibB is using LibC 1.9
So now what are your options?
Strip out all of the calls to all of the new API for LibC that you wanted to use...
...or hope that LibB is open-source, and you can contribute an update for a new version of it, so that you can use the latest version of LibC (and hope it doesn't update).
So now you've done that... but now you've broken your LibA, because it wants the old LibB.
You didn't even want LibA, you just had to have it for your app to be happy with your framework, and the libs that you did actually want to use (B and C). LibA is closed-source, and isn't maintained, anymore. Tough luck. Go back to your old ways, and forget about how much better life could be, if you could only use your framework with the new version of LibC. Or start praying that your framework does a major rewrite, to get rid of the LibA dependency... but then figure out what new hell you have to deal with, just to get LibC working.
Is this really better than Node?
What node allows you to do is install dependencies which are at different versions than the same library that your dependencies are using.
Not that you can't do that with Java, too... but the entire community has decided that it's just not ever going to try to do that, and thus outlaw it at a tool level.
Next, you see too many things which leave you at the mercy of too many vendors...
Going back to Java (or C++, or nearly any mainstream language), looking at Java, itself, how many libraries are made by Sun Microsystems, or by James Gosling?
Moreover, if you want to boil it down, to suggest using only, say, one huge, overarching framework (like Spring MVC) and using no other libraries of any kind (like JodaTime), then how many libraries does Spring itself lean on, and why are they of no concern to you, even if you're just using the compiled VM bytecode?
In fact, a strong argument could be made to be more wary of compiled binaries, in languages where it was traditional to see strong, copy-left licensing like that of the GNU GPL... in that realm, you open yourself up to craziness.
Most of the Node stuff, by comparison, is dirt-simple freeware. And even if it's not, it's quickly replaceable as most are micro-libraries.
I would suggest that updating a Node package your server depends on, via CLI is less hazardous than doing the same to a full-fledged Java project, if your goal is to see your project compile again, some time in the next week, but with the newer fixes/features...
...but if you're talking about a full-scale, production application, you also want to be cognizant of what it is you're doing, with regards to your codebase, regardless.
As to why things don't build for you on the first try, assuming that you're on a non-Windows platform, and your environment is up to date, I don't know.
Most C/C++ projects I clone don't build for me, first try, either. I usually forget something, or there was something poorly documented, or the actual project was set up to make unfair assumptions about the system it would operate in.
Does that mean that C++ is an unreliable/unstable development platform?
Or the hours/days spent on getting Eclipse set up in an enterprise environment, with all kinds of crazy, company-specific projects and project settings?
It sounds like a case of bad design, more than anything.
Then again, most of my projects these days are wrapped in Docker containers. They all run in the same environment, whether they're running in Windows, on a Mac, or on the server. That tends to take the sting out of building projects, regardless of what language the code is in, or what VM / processor they're running on.
You should also be using NPM shrinkwrap files, or Yarn Lockfiles to preserve the build configuration, with the known-working versions of libraries. And you should have unit and integration tests to ensure that changing library versions has no discernible impact on your system.
Although I am relatively new to using Linux, I would like to know more on how deploying packages works. I have tried searching for this but have had no luck. I have seen countless packages and install scripts that use the same looking 'graphical' command line install for the user to select options for the package. Take the Debian net install for example. [1]
As I have a lot to learn, I would only like a summary of how this is possible, and any resources that anyone has on how developers do this.
Thanks in advance.
[1] http://doudoulinux.org/blog/public/screenshots/install/install-selected-tasks.png
OK, now, i believe, i understand what you're after. I'll still insist that interactive configuration of packages is distro specific and shall not be the main form of package configuration.
It is preferred to ship in a default working configuration and then document how the user can change configuration files (normally in /etc) to reconfigure the package. It is often useful to ship several default configurations (example package: wpa_supplicant which ships with several examples of network configuration, all disabled by default) and allow the user to choose by uncommenting lines.
Debian
The debian specific way to get packages configured is debconf, its configuration is a simple shell script (or a perl script, or whatever else that can talk over STDIN/STDOUT) and a template file. The template file is what will provide options in the aptitude/apt-get interface as in the screenshot in your question.
It is worth reading the debian guidelines on package configuration to have an idea of which kind of configuration is too much.
And they also have a thorough tutorial. Since you said you do not have experience packaging i also recommend reading the introduction to packaging, which will tell you where the files shall be placed. Also, dbhelper is a great tool to place files in the correct place in the package directory.
On other distros
Each distro has its own way of adding configuration to packages. Debian is notable for its debconf as it is one of the most feature rich tools for configuring packages (together with dpkg-reconfigure).
Developers of the software that is sipped in a distro package are often different people from the ones that do the packaging. Configuration options left by developers are often much more thorough than in the package (e.g. inclusion or exclusion of certain libraries).
The fact that you're most familiar with the debian distro (that is an assumption based on your question tags), might give you a misleading idea of package configuration. Only debian based distros have so many configurable packages, other distros often use package dependencies to install differently configured packages. For example:
RedHat based distros (.rpm packages) have no tool such as debconf (as far as i am aware), they use distinct (conflicting) package names to install differently configured packages.
Arch Linux based distros enforce the user configuration. In essence, arch forces the user to configure their packages by going into their configuration files and changing the configuration (that is a very good thing if you want to learn).
Funny enough, both RPM and Arch based distros often ship po-debconf, an adapted debconf for that distro. Yet, i cannot tell much about it since i never tried it.
We are in a networked Linux environment and what I'm looking for is a FOSS or generic system level method for managing what versions of executables and libraries get used, per session. The executables would preferably be installed on the network. The executables will be in-house tools and installs of commercial packages like Houdini, Maya and Nuke.
The need for this is that we'd prefer to have multiple versions of the software installed and available for the artists but there needs to be an easy way to select which version to use. As an added benefit, I'd like to be able to track the version of software used to generate a given output as metadata. I've worked at studios that did this successfully but I was not 100% up to speed on how it was achieved. Every executable in a given set was assigned a single uber version for the set. That way, the "approved packages" of the studio tools were all collapsed into a single package of tools that were known to work together.
Due to the way they install, some programs make setting this up easy (It's as simple as adding their install directories to $PATH). Other programs don't make it quite so easy. I'm particularly worried about how to handle the libraries a program might install. What's needed is a generic access method I can use to wrap everything into a clean front end.
Does anyone know of such a system available in the wild or am I going to have to implement it from scratch? Google hasn't been very helpful in finding a solution.
Thanks!
Check out the "modules" system at http://modules.sourceforge.net/ ; it's quite widely used in HPC.
There is eselect . I have only used it on funtoo(offspring of gentoo) but it seems to be doing what you need. It is also written entirely in BASH, so it should be quite possible to port to other distros.
I am looking for a good way to install an application I developed with all its dependencies in a fancy way. Currently I have a big make file that downloads, unpacks, compiles and installs all dependencies. This however is a little tedious, since there are quite a few dependencies and the make file is getting larger and larger which eventually will be hard to maintain. Therefore I am looking for a packaging tool with the following features:
It should be a light weight package manager which is very easy to install (or even installs itself and afterwards all my dependencies)
The destination of the installed binaries, libraries etc. should be customizable
Each installation process of a dependency should be easy configurable
It should be possible to include self written scripts that get executed at a specific point during the installation process (in order to manipulate make files, flags etc)
No admin rights should be necessary since all clients that install my application will not have admin rights and are not able to use an already installed package manager
I do not know if this kind of software exists. I myself don't have much of experience with packaging tools.
Thx in advance for any link, hint, suggestion!
opkg is something thats based on ipkg (now defunct) and originally dpkg. Its used in embedded systems. Light weight for sure.
ports from crux linux (www.crux.nu)?
A quick search returns InstallJammer. I would propose make debs and rpms and tarballs and stick with standard installation process (root privileges and such)m but if you can't do that, then, well, you can't.
I'm sure you know how suspicious it would look for the user.