Loading Profile...
Why is there no proper Ubuntu repository?
Like presumably many other people I would like to install Songbird on my Ubuntu. I dislike downloading and installing pre-build packages, because they do not offer auto-updates and so on. Instead, I would like a repository that has Songbird in it. However, such a thing does not exist.
There _is_ a Ubuntu Repository with daily builds of Songbird in a PPA (Personal Package Archive). It failed to build last time, so it is pretty useless.
To get larger dissemination of Songbird, please create a repository that has a stable in it for people to try.
Thank you!
There _is_ a Ubuntu Repository with daily builds of Songbird in a PPA (Personal Package Archive). It failed to build last time, so it is pretty useless.
To get larger dissemination of Songbird, please create a repository that has a stable in it for people to try.
Thank you!
I’m disappointed.
4
people have this question
I have this question, too!
Tell me when someone answers.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
-
Inappropriate?To be honest, I personally would prefer all 3rd party developers refrain from releasing custom linux packages (deb, ebuilds, etc), until Linux distributions agree to support a common format.
Technically, though, I think there should be an official RPM package, because RPM is the format defined in the Linux Standard Base, as the common package format2 Comments
Add a comment
This answers the question
-
A common format would be nice. It is an entirely different question though and does not take the situation in account as it is. Fact: Many people use Ubuntu and many would like a repository RIGHT NOW, and that is before a common format is agreed upon. So if 3rd party devs would like to spread their software, they should create repositories accordingly (and will). -
What about using Autopackage instead though? Then all distro's with bash support can run the installer, and it doesn't need to be repackaged 10 times.
Ubuntu might be popular, but gentoo, arch, Redhat/fedora, Suse are too. An auto-package could possibly accommodate ALL these distro's, and it makes it easier for users (because they don't even need to know which distro they are running) -
Inappropriate?Packages (RPM or Autopackage) don't provide a solution for this. They don't auto-update.
Probably getting songbird to work is not an issue for most users (it's just unpacking and running the songbird executable), but it just doesn't integrate nicely. -
Inappropriate?Note that being in a default ubuntu repository is key make your software visible to all those ubuntu users out there. That's the first place you look if you're an ubuntu user and you want to find a suited program for your needs.
I do know there's a built in software updater, but this is only useful for people who already have songbird.
As an ubuntu user, I actually prefer to have one place where I can manage software updates for all programs, rather than each program having its own auto update system.
To me, packages such as RPM and autopackage belong to the past.
My guess is that other operating systems will follow this trend and come up with a system to install and update software.
Having to open your browser and find a reliable place to get some specific software is really a hassle in windows for example. -
Inappropriate?Bernard, actually, Songbird has built in mechanisms that allow auto-update (at least in windows, but the same code can probably work for Linux I'd imagine). Yes it isn't centralised via APT, but it is just as effective.
In terms of getting in the default ubuntu repository, apparently they tried, but they refused. RPM is part of the past, but autopackage is similar to a windows installer
CHAMP
