Sean MichaelKerner:Autopackage 1.0 Targets Developers.internetnews.com,28.März 2005,abgerufen am 21.Januar 2012(englisch):„„RPM itself isn’t that bad. The Big Issue is that RPMs are specific to particular distributions and distribution versions and sometimes even patch levels of those distributions, […] Autopackage gets around that problem by being universal. It also provides a consistent experience for all users, which means we can improve it faster than every distro doing their own thing can. […] I think you’ll see RPMs become less common on sourceforge download pages, if only because they’re such a pain to constantly rebuild,“ Hearn said.“
RobertStaudinger:Distributionsunabhängige Pakete mit Autopackage – Eines für alle.Linux-Magazin 2006/02,1.Februar 2006,abgerufen am 11.April 2012:„Obwohl sie nach dem gleichen Prinzip arbeiten, laufen RPMs von Suse 9.2 nicht unter Suse 9.3 und schon gar nicht unter Red Hat. Das Autopackage-Projekt setzt auf einen einheitlichen Standard für die Erstellung von Installationspaketen. Dabei lösen die einzelnen Pakete ihre Abhängigkeiten selbst auf.“
JoeBrockmeier:Autopackage 1.0.lwn.net,30.März 2005,abgerufen am 24.Januar 2012(englisch):„Overall, Autopackage is a very promising project. It makes it possible for third-parties to distribute software for Linux users […] It’s too bad that such a system is still necessary at this time, but it fills a necessary gap until the day that Linux distributions can settle on a standard base system and packaging format.“
BryceHarrington:Inkscape – A Union of Contributions Makes a Difference.www.osnews.com,2.Juni 2004,abgerufen am 18.Februar 2012(englisch):„The latest contribution that I think will have widespread and exciting ramification’s was brought to Inkscape quite out of the blue by Mike Hearn. Mike’s project, called AutoPackage, seeks to solve the perennial problem of easily installing software on Linux.“
MikeHearn:Autopackage FAQ.autopackage.org,17.Juli 2011,archiviertvomOriginalam22.Januar 2009;abgerufen am 21.Januar 2012(englisch):„What is autopackage? For users: it makes software installation on Linux easier. If a project provides an autopackage, you know it can work on your distribution. You know it’ll integrate nicely with your desktop and you know it’ll be up to date, because it’s provided by the software developers themselves. You don’t have to choose which distro you run based on how many packages are available. For developers: it’s software that lets you create binary packages for Linux that will install on any distribution, can automatically resolve dependencies and can be installed using multiple front ends, for instance from the command line or from a graphical interface. It lets you get your software to your users quicker, easier and more reliably. It immediately increases your user base by allowing people with no native package to run your software within seconds.“
Random Collection of Current Linux Problems Binary Portability.autopackage.org,2006,archiviertvomOriginalam18.Mai 2009;abgerufen am 23.Januar 2012(englisch):„This page was prepared for the OSDL meeting in December 2005. It describes many of the problems inherent to Linux we’ve encountered whilst distributing complex software in binary form to end users. It also offers a few suggestions for improvements.“
MikeHearn:Guide to Making Relocatable Applications (BinReloc 2.0).autopackage.org,archiviertvomOriginalam25.Januar 2009;abgerufen am 26.Januar 2012(englisch):„However, most applications are not relocatable. The paths where in they search for data files are usually hardd at compile time. On Win32, applications and libraries are easily relocatable because applications and DLLs can use GetModuleFilename() to obtain their full path.“
MikeHearn:Autopackage FAQ.autopackage.org,17.Juli 2011,archiviertvomOriginalam22.Januar 2009;abgerufen am 21.Januar 2012(englisch):„What’s a desktop Linux platform? Why do we need one? Essentially, software is easy to install on Windows and MacOS […] because by depending on „Windows 2000 or above“ developers get a huge chunk of functionality guaranteed to be present, and it’s guaranteed to be stable. In contrast, on Linux you cannot depend on anything apart from the kernel and glibc.“
MikeHearn:The user interface vision.autopackage.org,2004,archiviertvomOriginalam1.Februar 2009;abgerufen am 25.Januar 2012(englisch):„We already have a great deal more power than the competition in the area where it most counts in the short term – the corporate desktop. […] So, given that we already have power for those who most need it, the next place to push forward is in ease of use.“
BruceByfield:Autopackage struggling to gain acceptance.linux.com,12.Februar 2007,archiviertvomOriginalam31.März 2008;abgerufen am 21.Januar 2012(englisch):„If Hearn is correct, the real lesson of Autopackage is not how to improve software installation, but the difficulty -- perhaps the impossibility -- of large-scale changes in Linux architecture this late in its history. It’s a sobering, disappointing conclusion to a project that once seemed so promising.“
MikeHearn:Autopackage FAQ.autopackage.org,17.Juli 2011,archiviertvomOriginalam22.Januar 2009;abgerufen am 21.Januar 2012(englisch):„What is autopackage? For users: it makes software installation on Linux easier. If a project provides an autopackage, you know it can work on your distribution. You know it’ll integrate nicely with your desktop and you know it’ll be up to date, because it’s provided by the software developers themselves. You don’t have to choose which distro you run based on how many packages are available. For developers: it’s software that lets you create binary packages for Linux that will install on any distribution, can automatically resolve dependencies and can be installed using multiple front ends, for instance from the command line or from a graphical interface. It lets you get your software to your users quicker, easier and more reliably. It immediately increases your user base by allowing people with no native package to run your software within seconds.“
Random Collection of Current Linux Problems Binary Portability.autopackage.org,2006,archiviertvomOriginalam18.Mai 2009;abgerufen am 23.Januar 2012(englisch):„This page was prepared for the OSDL meeting in December 2005. It describes many of the problems inherent to Linux we’ve encountered whilst distributing complex software in binary form to end users. It also offers a few suggestions for improvements.“
MikeHearn:Guide to Making Relocatable Applications (BinReloc 2.0).autopackage.org,archiviertvomOriginalam25.Januar 2009;abgerufen am 26.Januar 2012(englisch):„However, most applications are not relocatable. The paths where in they search for data files are usually hardd at compile time. On Win32, applications and libraries are easily relocatable because applications and DLLs can use GetModuleFilename() to obtain their full path.“
MikeHearn:Autopackage FAQ.autopackage.org,17.Juli 2011,archiviertvomOriginalam22.Januar 2009;abgerufen am 21.Januar 2012(englisch):„What’s a desktop Linux platform? Why do we need one? Essentially, software is easy to install on Windows and MacOS […] because by depending on „Windows 2000 or above“ developers get a huge chunk of functionality guaranteed to be present, and it’s guaranteed to be stable. In contrast, on Linux you cannot depend on anything apart from the kernel and glibc.“
MikeHearn:The user interface vision.autopackage.org,2004,archiviertvomOriginalam1.Februar 2009;abgerufen am 25.Januar 2012(englisch):„We already have a great deal more power than the competition in the area where it most counts in the short term – the corporate desktop. […] So, given that we already have power for those who most need it, the next place to push forward is in ease of use.“
BruceByfield:Autopackage struggling to gain acceptance.linux.com,12.Februar 2007,archiviertvomOriginalam31.März 2008;abgerufen am 21.Januar 2012(englisch):„If Hearn is correct, the real lesson of Autopackage is not how to improve software installation, but the difficulty -- perhaps the impossibility -- of large-scale changes in Linux architecture this late in its history. It’s a sobering, disappointing conclusion to a project that once seemed so promising.“
