-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Clarify Image format, runtime, header #6
Comments
Imho, we should decouple the discussion of the three things from each other. First, we should define the type 3 image format. This may require us to agree on a way to deal with resources first (I would love to see a non AppImage-specific way to deal with resources - after all they can be useful for non-AppImages too) Second we will then have to adjust the existing runtime (or write an entirely new one) to support this new image format |
Right now, the repository is a mix of type 3 specification and runtime reference implementation. In the future, we can formalize the spec and move it over to any repository (although I'm pretty sure the MIT license is not a good idea). Until the type 3 spec hasn't been fully engineered here, I'd rather not start to do things in the spec repo. The reason is that this spec repo lacks formalization, e.g., there's no versioning of any kind, and it calls itself a draft even after all the years. A type 3 should have more reliability for third party implementations. For instance, we're already working on things like compatibility schemes which should ensure long-time stability. The change of the magic bytes' location is not the only change with regards to the image layout. You might've noticed that I plan on including an "AppImage header" carrying all the metainformation currently scattered across the ELF header (and I think we should rather not tinker with that too much) and the contents of the AppImage. Introducing a blob in between the regular ELF runtime header and the payload has several advantages. You can find most of them across the various issues. Most notably:
We could even discuss moving signatures of the AppImage to the end of the AppImage, maybe even in ASCII armored form? That way, it might be possible to check signatures of AppImages without any additional complexity, as |
We should discuss this idea in more depth. Currently I have a tendency not to be in favor of it (because it complicates things significantly) but maybe I am not understanding it fully yet. Maybe we should set up a date and time for an Jitsi session? |
Hi @TheAssassin. In order to get a serious discussion started around the ideas and concepts in this repository, we should clarify the use of some terms first, so that everyone (including the two of us) understands what is meant. Reading in this repository, I think some terms are mixed and matched in ways that make them less clear to understand.
So here is my proposal:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: