Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Poll: Should we implement AppImage for Linux builds? #3767

Closed
evertonfraga opened this issue Mar 20, 2018 · 33 comments

Comments

@evertonfraga
Copy link
Member

@evertonfraga evertonfraga commented Mar 20, 2018

Users have reported numerous (1, 2, 3) dependency issues while using our .deb bundling format.

We can get rid of the .deb issues altogether by migrating to a self-contained app model that does not require installation. It also works with several distros, making available to Fedorians, Arch-ians and so on.

"Download an application, make it executable, and run! No need to install. No system libraries or system preferences are altered. Can also run in a sandbox like Firejail"
https://appimage.org

Please use reactions (👍 👎), comments are allowed.

Thank you!

@probonopd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@probonopd probonopd commented Mar 21, 2018

Should be rather easy as electron-builder can produce AppImages natively.

@evertonfraga

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@evertonfraga evertonfraga commented Mar 21, 2018

Thanks for chiming in @probonopd. And congrats on the project :)

@thekevinb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@thekevinb thekevinb commented Mar 22, 2018

I'm OK with .appimage . It has worked easily for the other two programs that I use that come that way.

BTW, I'm on Ubuntu.

@3esmit

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@3esmit 3esmit commented Mar 22, 2018

We should verify if AppImage provide meets security requirements for blockchain applications (opensource + tamper proof).
If so I think is a great thing to be used because its a good pattern for linux distros using applications files packed together with required libraries - but this might increase the size of file (because libraries are packed with file) however reduces problem with bad dependencies (privously installed shared objects might be tampered or in wrong version?)

@ktecho

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ktecho ktecho commented Mar 22, 2018

I used the .deb. Worker perfectly for me in Ubuntu 18.04 (beta).

Disappointed to not find .deb in latest version.

@jlmargason

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@jlmargason jlmargason commented Mar 22, 2018

I don't like this idea, are all the issues with 32bit systems? Are legacy system users really the most important demographic? Taking away this deb is going to annoy a lot more people than the few on 32bit legacy systems that can figure out how to manually install it anyway.

Maintain the .deb and maybe add a .rpm. I don't understand why you don't have an official PPA so that this can stay up to date with the rest of my system.

AppImage sounds bloaty, and bloaty isn't very sexy. Secure automatic updates with the native package manager would be very sexy..

How are we supposed to update now that we installed with the deb previously? You tease us with a .deb one release then just take it away.. :(

@probonopd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@probonopd probonopd commented Mar 24, 2018

AppImage sounds bloaty, and bloaty isn't very sexy.

Are you talking about verifyable facts here or are you just guessing blindly?

@jlmargason

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@jlmargason jlmargason commented Mar 24, 2018

I didn't make any guesses, I just described what it sounded like. I really don't care if the package is twice as large but I want it to work with my native package manager. I don't think this is too much to ask from a serious software project.

@probonopd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@probonopd probonopd commented Mar 25, 2018

@jlmargason there are examples where the AppImage is actually smaller than a normal installation. Think of AppImage like what is known as a "portable application" on Windows or an .app inside a .dmg disk image on the Mac. A package manager is not really needed for AppImages, as there is no installation and the files are "managed" by drag-and-drop. The advantage is that you can use the same file across many distribution (without having to re-download the same software for each distribution), and the application stays a separate entity from the OS (is not "baked in") and hence easy to move, remove, copy, etc.

@jlmargason

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@jlmargason jlmargason commented Mar 25, 2018

I understand how it works, I'm a Linux Engineer. The fact that there is no installation is the issue. I want the software be installed on my system and conform to the XDG standard.

Using AppImage is great for systems that the .deb packages won't work on, and I'm sure many other edge cases, but I don't think it should be the official delivery strategy for all Linux systems.

@nagydani

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@nagydani nagydani commented Mar 26, 2018

I think that the amount of work required to maintain both .appimage and .deb is within the means of the team. The two are really for different purposes and having an installed deb package that is kept up to date with the rest of the system is an important benefit for some users and system administrators.

@jnfaerch

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@jnfaerch jnfaerch commented Mar 26, 2018

My 2 cents worth: Used .deb version on Ubuntu 17.10 without problems.
There seems to be a snap version but I cannot get it to run (might be bogus: "automatic plant watering based on node, koa, and a vue client" by developer obedm503 :)
The appImage runs but I'd rather install it as .deb or (working) snap in order to get regular updates automagically.

@alexstaj

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@alexstaj alexstaj commented Mar 26, 2018

how am I supposed to update to 0.10 now that I had previously installed by .deb?

@jnfaerch

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@jnfaerch jnfaerch commented Mar 27, 2018

@alexstaj Just uninstall the deb version (or don't!), download the 0.10 and run it via the program file. (Ubuntu 17.10)

@chipkreis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@chipkreis chipkreis commented Mar 30, 2018

Linux Mint 18.3 64 bit, no issues with .deb. Seems like the barrier to entry is lower with a .deb or .rpm, IMHO.

@alexstaj

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@alexstaj alexstaj commented Mar 30, 2018

@chipkreis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@chipkreis chipkreis commented Mar 30, 2018

@alexstaj it looks like that is all in the .ethereum directory within your home directory.

@ktecho

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ktecho ktecho commented Mar 30, 2018

I think if you want for people to start thinking in the appimage, just release that appimage package.

If not, you should have released the .deb

@GJames1977

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@GJames1977 GJames1977 commented Apr 1, 2018

I just wanted to say as a Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Linux user I definately prefer a managed software installation (via a package manager) which is also easily updateable rather than just a standalone executable binary.

I think it would be good if a .deb package was still released until an alternative installation package has been decided/implemented for platforms that curently have no issue/s with .deb. Maybe for now it just needs to be clear which platforms have known problems with .deb releases?

Any chance a .deb package can be released for version 0.10.0?

@probonopd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@probonopd probonopd commented Apr 1, 2018

It's not either-or. AppImage and deb are addressing very different use cases.

@evertonfraga

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@evertonfraga evertonfraga commented Apr 1, 2018

Alright, I'm closing the poll. That was a fruitful discussion.

We'll do our best to provide a .deb for 0.10.0 soon, probably tagged as 0.10.1 due to semantic versioning best practices.

We're still interested in provide a portable and more universal linux installation, so that may come after the .deb is resolved.

@GJames1977

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@GJames1977 GJames1977 commented Apr 1, 2018

@probonopd assuming your last comment is addressed to me, yes understood, as I say I just prefer some form of software 'package' than just a standalone executable binary.

@evertonfraga thanks for the reply around trying to provide a .deb release for 0.10.0

@dllud

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@dllud dllud commented Apr 9, 2018

Any ETA for the .deb files corresponding to the 0.10.0 release? I would like to update my system, but I definitely prefer to wait for those .deb to keep it all nice and tidy.

A Ubuntu PPA (and a Debian repo) would be much handy. As @jlmargason points out, using your distro's package manager is the best way to keep your system secure and up-to-date.

Native package support for other distros, such as Fedora and Arch, can probably be achieved with your current build system or using something like SUSE's Open Build Service.
Your end goal though, should be to find a packager/maintainer for each major distro and have your package added into their main repos. It shouldn't be that hard. Do notice that you already have packagers on Arch AUR and openSUSE Build Service (nothing yet on Fedora's Copr though).

@rushsteve1

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@rushsteve1 rushsteve1 commented Apr 10, 2018

A bit late to the discussion but I maintain an unofficial Flatpak version of Mist for Flathub.
https://github.com/flathub/org.ethereum.Mist
Flatpak is not quite as just download and run as AppImage, but provides other benefits such as sandboxing and easy updates.

@probonopd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@probonopd probonopd commented Apr 10, 2018

benefits such as sandboxing and easy updates

AppImages can use Firejail and AppImageUpdate.

@inn0vative1

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@inn0vative1 inn0vative1 commented Apr 13, 2018

Why get rid of the .deb file before you have a replacement in place? To remove the .deb option while you're still thinking about what to do next? That was a mistake as that left many people stranded. Any ETA on that 0.10.1?

@kylegordon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@kylegordon kylegordon commented Apr 30, 2018

Pretty annoyed that the .deb was removed without having a valid replacement available.

The packaging issues that have been linked at the start are architecture related issues. Such as in #3313 the user is checking libappindicator1 and being told that the x64 (default) version is installed, ignoring the need for the i386 version, and then trying to install Mist:i386

The use of a PPA or correctly configured repository should resolve these issues.

Nonetheless, if AppImage supports wins this poll, I would strongly suggest ensuring reproducible builds are available.

ie, https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/About

@bblboy54

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@bblboy54 bblboy54 commented May 5, 2018

Is there any ETA on the .deb file that was supposed to be coming shortly? It's been over a month and I'd love to be able to update my installation.

@Tas-sos

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@Tas-sos Tas-sos commented Jun 24, 2018

Create .deb package and nothing else! Also add it to the official repositories ( Debian & ubuntu ).
And of course continue to give zip or tarball archives for all GNU/Linux distributions.
If you have problems, check out the community for help. 😄

@MattTwinkleToes

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@MattTwinkleToes MattTwinkleToes commented Jul 5, 2018

now that the .deb has vanished and that there is no appimage, how are linux users supposed to upgrade their broken old versions and get access to their eth?

@evertonfraga

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

@evertonfraga evertonfraga commented Jul 9, 2018

I had some personal issues to take care of and was out for a while – I apologize.
We've restored .deb distribution format for version 0.11.0. We couldn't ship it before, as there were some major changes in the pipeline, which I recommend you to take a look :)

Let me know of anything linux related.

@kylegordon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@kylegordon kylegordon commented Jul 10, 2018

@evertonfraga no need to apologize. Personal and family should always come first :-)

Thank you for reinstating .deb support. One successful upgrade on Ubuntu 18.04 here 👍

@jnfaerch

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@jnfaerch jnfaerch commented Jul 12, 2018

@evertonfraga Thanks. Installed and running smoothly on Ubuntu 18.04 +1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
You can’t perform that action at this time.