#2250 closed enhancement (wontfix)

Make I2P running inside any GNU/Linux distro usning AppImage

Reported by: anonymous maybe Owned by:
Priority: minor Milestone: undecided
Component: installer Version: 0.9.34
Keywords: Cc:
Parent Tickets:

Description (last modified by anonymous maybe)

This project https://appimage.org/

allow you to make all needed packages for program available and executable to run with user privileges in one single shot.

so instead of supporting Debian.Fedora,Slackware...etc of GNU/Linux distros. we will have only ONE program that runs on all of them regardless how their structural design is.

This will save alot of headache and attract other users which i2p doesnt support their distros yet.

some other advantages mentioned here https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/blob/appimagetool/master/README.md:


Applications packaged as an AppImage can run on many distributions (including Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, CentOS, elementaryOS, Linux Mint, and others)
    One app = one file = super simple for users: just download one AppImage file, make it executable, and run
    No unpacking or installation necessary
    No root needed
    No system libraries changed
    Works out of the box, no installation of runtimes needed
    Optional desktop integration with appimaged
    Optional binary delta updates, e.g., for continuous builds (only download the binary diff) using AppImageUpdate
    Can optionally GPG2-sign your AppImages (inside the file)
    Works on Live ISOs
    Can use the same AppImages when dual-booting multiple distributions
    Can be listed in the AppImageHub central directory of available AppImages
    Can double as a self-extracting compressed archive with the --appimage-extract parameter


it doesnt require to install anything like in snap or flatpak, it only need to download the .appimage extract it then make it executable then run it. all with user privileges with zero use to apt install.

list of apps in same formate:

https://appimage.github.io/apps/

Subtickets

Change History (15)

comment:1 Changed 11 months ago by anonymous maybe

  • Component changed from unspecified to installer

comment:2 Changed 11 months ago by anonymous maybe

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:3 Changed 11 months ago by anonymous maybe

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:4 Changed 11 months ago by anonymous maybe

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:5 follow-up: Changed 11 months ago by slumlord

We currently have an install.jar that requires one simple command line to install as a user without requiring root permissions. I don't understand at all what particular problem this is intended to solve.

comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 11 months ago by anonymous maybe

Replying to slumlord:

We currently have an install.jar that requires one simple command line to install as a user without requiring root permissions. I don't understand at all what particular problem this is intended to solve.

thats not true , as you need to have java installed already inside the distro you want to use .jar inside it. also you gonna install i2p after that..

so appimage is totally different , as it doesnt require you to have installed anything nor installing anything. just download , make it executable , run it for all and every GNU/Linux distro. nothing needed to be dependent on the distro repos or what does provide for the user.

comment:7 Changed 11 months ago by slumlord

Yes, Java would have to be installed.

If I used an AppImage? for this, I assume it would be bundling some kind of JVM along with it. Now, when security issues arise with the particular version of the bundled JVM, how would the user know that this issue exists and that it had to be corrected? If they install Java from the package manager that dependency will be kept up-to-date and security issues will be identified and corrected. How does an AppImage? handle that?

This will save alot of headache and attract other users which i2p doesnt support their distros yet.

Seems to create headaches associated with getting all of this stuff figured out and functional. I'm not sure how applicable this is to Java-based programs such as I2P. Which distro isn't supported by I2P? No idea what you are referring to. If a distro has a JRE, or a JRE can be compiled by hand for it, I2P can run. Have I missed something?

comment:8 Changed 11 months ago by zzz

  • Status changed from new to infoneeded_new

Why? who are you assuming has a "headache"? me? I'm fine, thank you.

We are already in Debian and Ubuntu, no changes necessary.

For other distros, we have install.jar, as slumlord said in comment 5.

This sounds like not a solution but another problem. We currently have Debian, Ubuntu, our jar install, our windows install, coming soon a separate OSX install, Android, and maven builds. This would not replace them all, but be another one.

If users are clamoring for AppImage?, maybe. But don't assume it's going to make our job any easier - it won't. We are wary of new package formats - we haven't even done snap yet.

Tell us what users want it and why. Do you want it or are you guessing somebody else does? Don't try to convince me I want it.

comment:9 Changed 11 months ago by anonymous maybe

  • Status changed from infoneeded_new to new

@slumlord

i made a ticket with ur questions for better answers from the developers themselves:

https://discourse.appimage.org/t/understanding-jre-based-applications-with-appimage/408

u can add ur questions there as well if u like.

@zzz:

If users are clamoring for AppImage??, maybe. But don't assume it's going to make our job any easier - it won't. We are wary of new package formats - we haven't even done snap yet.

since its universal app for all gnu/linux , im assuming its less headache and makes the job easier.

Tell us what users want it and why. Do you want it or are you guessing somebody else does? Don't try to convince me I want it.

its not about the user actually , its about the job itself on making i2p available as im assuming as an appimage to be one shot for all gnu/linux distros will reduce the focus from making i2p on different formats into one single format. And im just suggesting this method for discussions and to take a look at it.

if u see that what i2p having of .jar doing better or same job as appimage then thats nice, but at least we have discussed what is/are i2p views on appimage.

comment:10 follow-up: Changed 11 months ago by slumlord

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from new to closed

If this was intended to be a discussion, a development forum such as zzz.i2p or i2pforum.i2p would be more appropriate. Creating clutter on our trac isn't a good idea, nor is it the appropriate place for discussions.

I am now going to close this ticket.

comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 Changed 11 months ago by anonymous maybe

Replying to slumlord:

If this was intended to be a discussion

this is not intended to be discussion, but how can u provide an enhancement without a discussion

a development forum such as zzz.i2p or i2pforum.i2p would be more appropriate.

will trac has something called "enhancement" in case u didnt see that. though i dont mind using these forums as well.

Creating clutter on our trac isn't a good idea, nor is it the appropriate place for discussions.

what do u mean "our" ??? well its mine as well as everyone else contributing their time to this project whether u like it or not.

I am now going to close this ticket.

leave it please open please until it closed on rational/reasonable bases.

comment:12 Changed 11 months ago by anonymous maybe

  • Resolution wontfix deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

comment:13 Changed 11 months ago by slumlord

what do u mean "our" ??? well its mine as well as everyone else contributing their time to this project whether u like it or not.

Let me address this first. You appear to be thinking of me as an adversary. I am not. I did not mean "our" trac to mean "mine", or "not yours". Please correct your interpretations.

I am merely stating a fact that this isn't something that those who are currently working on the project find useful, as evidenced by zzz's and my responses. I am merely stating that you are free to make a thread on either zzz.i2p or i2pforum.i2p and continue/begin the discussion as to whether this is something that would even be useful to begin with - as of now I see nothing posted by you on either forum.

this is not intended to be discussion, but how can u provide an enhancement without a discussion

If this was something that you thought was an "enhancement" without having discussed with anyone else who is currently contributing to the I2P project, involved in build-related tasks, or using the software then it's better to make a forum post to gauge who would find this useful and who currently has issues with the way the software is provided or built.

since its universal app for all gnu/linux , im assuming its less headache and makes the job easier.

its not about the user actually , its about the job itself on making i2p available as im assuming as an appimage to be one shot for all gnu/linux distros will reduce the focus from making i2p on different formats into one single format. And im just suggesting this method for discussions and to take a look at it.

You've had responses from two different people who are carrying out the various tasks related to the "job itself on making i2p available" that contrary to your assumptions that this would make things easier for us, it does not.

Tell us what users want it and why. Do you want it or are you guessing somebody else does? Don't try to convince me I want it.

I'm not sure what part of any of this is lacking in "rational/reasonable bases" but okay. You've stated that you created this ticket based upon assumptions, those assumptions aren't true so I closed the ticket. You made a suggestion for "enhancement", we have disagreed that this would constitute as an "enhancement" and closed the ticket. I don't see anything further that needs to be done here. I do not intend to spend any further time on this ticket.

comment:14 Changed 11 months ago by anonymous maybe

Let me address this first. You appear to be thinking of me as an adversary. I am not. I did not mean "our" trac to mean "mine", or "not yours". Please correct your interpretations.

since you weren't attacking , then yes i got it wrong and apologies for that.

closing the ticket and shifting it to i2pforum.

regards.

comment:15 Changed 11 months ago by anonymous maybe

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from reopened to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.