Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla Brick

brick.mozilla.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 122 posts

Re: Mozilla Brick

#51

Post by scrollaway »

antocv wrote: post #21

Can we get a package manager for package managers? There is so many already, its hard to keep track what names come from what repositories of what package managers. It used to be so simple, yourDistroPackageManager install whatever, now there is x2000 versions of packageManager.

Reposting an old comment of mine on the subject::

The path to a standard package manager starts with a standardized protocol for package management.

A service protocol that is able to serve a repository of packages over http and ftp. A client protocol that can keep track of installed packages and can index, search and look for updates on installed packages.

Split package management into layers and only try to standardize bit by bit. People will never agree on deb vs rpm. People will never agree on using json vs python vs Makefile vs ruby vs shell vs whatever else - they'll always want their most familiar language for their package manager, which in domain-specific packaging means the domain-specific language.

So don't try to standardize those. Standardize the rest. Give us the protocol that can power all of this and increase interoperability. Separate the repository layer, the package format (deb, rpm), the packagefile format (setup.py, Makefile, PKGBUILD) and the package manager (interface: yum, apt-get, aptitude, pip, npm) from the rest of the protocol.

Make this potentially usable for things such as browser extension repositories, android package management, vim bundles and what not.

Someone please work on this. I'd do it but it just occured to me I have to clean my oven.

Re: Mozilla Brick

#52

Post by VeejayRampay »

morgante wrote: post #32
qewrffewqwfqew wrote: post #18

wth is going on at mozilla? There seems to be a lot of excitement to create stuff, without much attention to whether it's needed .. or where the lifecycle goes beyond creation. http://www.ianbicking.org/blog/2014/09/professional-transiti...

Seriously. It seems like Mozilla is completely directionless, working on multiple competing projects which go nowhere either due to lack of resources or not addressing any real community need. I'd love to see that effort concentrated on solving actual problems in a focused way, or maybe even making Firefox not sucky.

Making Firefox non-sucky? Isn't https://github.com/servo/servo good enough for you? Creating a new programming language and using it to build a modern browser rendering engine? I understand that Mozilla is going lots of different directions with its projects but come on, they can't be accused of not putting the effort to make the web better.

Re: Mozilla Brick

#53

Post by k_ »

scrollaway wrote: post #51
antocv wrote: post #21

Can we get a package manager for package managers? There is so many already, its hard to keep track what names come from what repositories of what package managers. It used to be so simple, yourDistroPackageManager install whatever, now there is x2000 versions of packageManager.

Reposting an old comment of mine on the subject:: The path to a standard package manager starts with a standardized protocol for package management. A service protocol that is able to serve a repository of packages over http and ftp. A client protocol that can keep track of installed packages and can index, search and look for updates on installed packages. Split package management into layers and only try to standar…

Well, since it's an old comment your oven should be clean by now :)

Re: Mozilla Brick

#54

Post by grosskur »

scrollaway wrote: post #51
antocv wrote: post #21

Can we get a package manager for package managers? There is so many already, its hard to keep track what names come from what repositories of what package managers. It used to be so simple, yourDistroPackageManager install whatever, now there is x2000 versions of packageManager.

Reposting an old comment of mine on the subject:: The path to a standard package manager starts with a standardized protocol for package management. A service protocol that is able to serve a repository of packages over http and ftp. A client protocol that can keep track of installed packages and can index, search and look for updates on installed packages. Split package management into layers and only try to standar…

I'm working on something along these lines:

https://www.packagelab.com/

The idea is to have a common UI and REST API for building packages and managing repositories across packaging toolchains. Right now it supports rpm+yum and deb+apt. Packages are built in isolated Linux containers using Heroku's buildpack interface. (Would love feedback from anyone who's interested in beta testing.)

Also, have you seen the Omaha protocol?

https://code.google.com/p/omaha/wiki/ServerProtocol

It's used by a lot software, including Chrome and ChromeOS. Recently, CoreOS has built infrastructure with it and they offer a SaaS product for rolling updates. I think they're planning on using it to update Docker containers, too:

https://coreos.com/products/coreupdate/

Re: Mozilla Brick

#56

Post by pjmlp »

tkubacki wrote: post #50
CmonDev wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

E.g. iOS lets me use: Objective C, Swift, C#, F#, Java, Scala. All compiling to lower-level code that is either native to platform or native to the language. Web lets me use: only JavaScript (that is written manually or transpiled). Yes I will have to pay extra for some solutions, but I don't mind doing this as opposed to using language that I hate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

> iOS lets me use [...] And Web Components are bringing innovation (component based app building) to rusty world of web dev which is not restricted to rich western society (Apple). I stopped ranting on JS - just use lang with good enough IDE like Dartlang (DartEditor or IntelliJ) PS: previous comment was not "ad persona" - but if you think transpilation is "lame" - you don't know how hard it's to make performant tran…

Society has lot of mobile OSes to chose from, not only from Apple.

Re: Mozilla Brick

#57

Post by _pmf_ »

scrollaway wrote: post #51
antocv wrote: post #21

Can we get a package manager for package managers? There is so many already, its hard to keep track what names come from what repositories of what package managers. It used to be so simple, yourDistroPackageManager install whatever, now there is x2000 versions of packageManager.

Reposting an old comment of mine on the subject:: The path to a standard package manager starts with a standardized protocol for package management. A service protocol that is able to serve a repository of packages over http and ftp. A client protocol that can keep track of installed packages and can index, search and look for updates on installed packages. Split package management into layers and only try to standar…

> Someone please work on this.

The only result will inevitably be that we'll have yet another package manager.

Re: Mozilla Brick

#58

Post by drinchev »

quarterto wrote: post #49
drinchev wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. Something more specific? I assume evergreen browser support means - Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, IE, but which versions. What about mobile OS ?

The whole point of "evergreen browsers" is that the version number doesn't matter.

I totally agree for Chrome, Safari ..., but IE isn't one of those. At least I think it's a little bit disturbing if I can't find browser support list on any new frontend framework that pops out, even if Mozilla is behind it.

Re: Mozilla Brick

#59

Post by sp332 »

VeejayRampay wrote: post #52
morgante wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. It seems like Mozilla is completely directionless, working on multiple competing projects which go nowhere either due to lack of resources or not addressing any real community need. I'd love to see that effort concentrated on solving actual problems in a focused way, or maybe even making Firefox not sucky.

Making Firefox non-sucky? Isn't https://github.com/servo/servo good enough for you? Creating a new programming language and using it to build a modern browser rendering engine? I understand that Mozilla is going lots of different directions with its projects but come on, they can't be accused of not putting the effort to make the web better.

Servo has nothing to do with Firefox.

Re: Mozilla Brick

#60

Post by scrollaway »

_pmf_ wrote: post #57
scrollaway wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reposting an old comment of mine on the subject:: The path to a standard package manager starts with a standardized protocol for package management. A service protocol that is able to serve a repository of packages over http and ftp. A client protocol that can keep track of installed packages and can index, search and look for updates on installed packages. Split package management into layers and only try to standar…

> Someone please work on this. The only result will inevitably be that we'll have yet another package manager.

You completely misunderstand the point. "Another package manager" doesn't matter. People can and should use the package manager of their choice (why should I break pip?). The point is to have common ground between all package managers.
Post reply on HN