autopackage

Talk about everything.
Post Reply
MatzeB

autopackage

Post by MatzeB » Thu Mar 31, 2005 15:47

You probably already know, but I'd like to point out that http://www.autopackage.org has just released version 1.0 and could be a real alternative to the loki installer.
I didn't test it much in terms of features, but at least these people do a great work in surrounding library and binary compatibility and their installer looks nicer than lokisetup ;-)

schoki

Post by schoki » Thu Mar 31, 2005 19:34

we have seen autopackage

and we have talked about :wink:

JerryCrazy

Post by JerryCrazy » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:46

wow,i love autopackage :shock:

does that have to be enormous works to pass from LokiInstaller to AutoPackage :?:

kommerck

Post by kommerck » Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:01

I think you shouldn't move completely to autopackage, but integrating code into the installer generator for registering the installed program in the autopackage database could be a cool feature. So a game can be uninstalled easily via autopackage

kratz00
liflg member
Posts: 1654
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 16:23

Post by kratz00 » Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:12

every installed game has a uninstall script in it's installation directory
so why should we register the installed games in the autopackage database?

F for Fragging

Post by F for Fragging » Sat Jun 04, 2005 15:10

I just registered here to reply on this thread. I really appreciate it that you guys create installers for Linux games. But I don't really like the loki installers, I think autopackage is better.

The loki installers use some kind of scary GTK 1 interface, while autopackage uses GTK 2 and also has a QT frontend (which is nice, because then I wouldn't have to D/L the GTK 1 libs for my KDE-only Kubuntu install).
Another thing is that autopackage is just a bit more user friendly, just click & install, while we have to open a terminal and issue a command to start the loki installer.

schoki, you're saying that "we have talked about it". Does that mean you guys aren't going to switch to autopackage? What are the reasons for that, is it hard to create autopackages? Please explain further.

I would really appreciate it if liflg would switch to autopackage, when Linux users will be able to install software and games with just a few mouse clicks it will be able to compete with Windows better.

schoki

Post by schoki » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:30

Another thing is that autopackage is just a bit more user friendly, just click & install,
loki installer too ... just click & install :)
schoki, you're saying that "we have talked about it".
I do not have time to learn how to make packages.

Guest

Post by Guest » Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:35

Hmm, I didn't know that the loki installer has a click and install feature as well. When I try to start an installer by clicking it in Konqueror, KDE 3.4.1 opens it in a text editor, Kate.

But the advantages of autopackage that remain are it's QT3 and GTK2 frontends, while the loki installer has the old - and with all respect, simply ugly looking - GTK1 interface.

You say that you don't have time to learn how to make autopackages. Does that mean that when you do have time somewhere in the future, we might have a chance of seeing autopackages on liflg.org?

schoki

Post by schoki » Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:58

Hmm, I didn't know that the loki installer has a click and install feature as well. When I try to start an installer by clicking it in Konqueror, KDE 3.4.1 opens it in a text editor, Kate.
make a right click on the installer >> open with >> type sh and save it as default. :D
But the advantages of autopackage that remain are it's QT3 and GTK2 frontends, while the loki installer has the old - and with all respect, simply ugly looking - GTK1 interface.
I know that qtk 2 and qt looks better than gtk 1 :wink:
You say that you don't have time to learn how to make autopackages. Does that mean that when you do have time somewhere in the future, we might have a chance of seeing autopackages on liflg.org?
maybe one day...i don't know.
i can't decide this alone, i must talk with the other liflg dev's.

madman2k

Post by madman2k » Thu Jul 28, 2005 17:53

more reasons to change to autopackage:

* it will be able to register with native package managers
* therefore you'll get automatic dependancy resolution

http://www.autopackage.org/schedule.html

Post Reply