You are not logged in.

#1 2019-07-23 16:36:26

TarsolyGer
Member
From: Korea
Registered: 2019-05-19
Posts: 56

Does the big fuss about "universal packaging" make any sense?

Hi!

I'm quite new to the 'GNU/Linux ecosystem', and I'm trying to get as many information viewpoints as possible through podcasts, YouTube videos, reading the Arch wiki and forum, and it seems to be kind of an 'universal complaint', that different Linux distributions using different packaging standards and different package managers is one of the worst things that hinder mass adoption of Linux on the desktop (a.k.a. fragmentation). Some say, that the fact that software developers have to package for N different package managers makes it not worth it for big companies to port their software to Linux. Others say, that packaging a software shouldn't be the job of the developers but the maintainers of the distribution. Others are placing their bets on which one of the "universal packaging" will solve the fragmentation problem, is snappy better than flatpak, or is it appimage that will rule the world?

I'm curious what the more seasoned veterans of a hands-on distro such as Arch think about this problem. So what do you guys and gals think? Does the big fuss about "universal packaging" make any sense?


Nutritional nihilist

Offline

#2 2019-07-23 18:02:18

jasonwryan
Anarchist
From: .nz
Registered: 2009-05-09
Posts: 28,114
Website

Re: Does the big fuss about "universal packaging" make any sense?

TarsolyGer wrote:

that hinder mass adoption of Linux on the desktop

That boat sailed in the 90's... Linux runs the Internet, the Cloud, supercomputing, the Internet of Shit. The desktop is irrelevant. All in spite of diversity in packaging.


Arch + dwm   •   Mercurial repos  •   Surfraw

Registered Linux User #482438

Online

#3 2019-07-23 19:00:07

ugjka
Member
From: Latvia
Registered: 2014-04-01
Posts: 1,362

Re: Does the big fuss about "universal packaging" make any sense?

Better keep the linux desktop fragmented, it keeps the fish fresh and Tux loves fresh fish


ENTER

~ Arch is not Arch unless it is Arch ~

Offline

#4 2019-07-25 20:33:27

ayekat
Member
Registered: 2011-01-17
Posts: 1,348
Website

Re: Does the big fuss about "universal packaging" make any sense?

TarsolyGer wrote:

Others say, that packaging a software shouldn't be the job of the developers but the maintainers of the distribution.

Well, I am the Others. smile

Does the big fuss about "universal packaging" make any sense?

I'm not going to take it seriously as long as they keep calling it that. It's just delusional.

It's "upstream packaging", and for me the only good reason for it to exist is for parties to release closed-source software into the Linux ecosystem.
So keeping it a weird, unintegrated system aside from a regular package manager is good, because it makes upstream think twice about hiding their code.


{,META,RE}PKGBUILDSpacman-hacks (includes makemetapkg and remakepkg) │ dotfiles

Offline

#5 2019-07-25 20:46:55

dmerej
Member
From: Paris
Registered: 2016-04-09
Posts: 82
Website

Re: Does the big fuss about "universal packaging" make any sense?

If you're here to gather opinions, you may find this arctile about maintainers interesting. I share most of the opinions expressed there, by the way.


Responsible Coder, Scrum Master, Buildfarm Guru, Python3 Fan
twitter: @d_merej mastodon:@dmerej@mamot.fr

Offline

#6 2019-07-26 17:54:48

TarsolyGer
Member
From: Korea
Registered: 2019-05-19
Posts: 56

Re: Does the big fuss about "universal packaging" make any sense?

dmerej wrote:

If you're here to gather opinions, you may find this arctile about maintainers interesting. I share most of the opinions expressed there, by the way.

Thank you, this writing was very eye-opening on how things (should?) work, and addressed most of the things I was concerned about.


Nutritional nihilist

Offline

#7 2019-07-26 18:08:00

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 22,272
Website

Re: Does the big fuss about "universal packaging" make any sense?

TarsolyGer wrote:

it seems to be kind of an 'universal complaint', that different Linux distributions using different packaging standards and different package managers is one of the worst things that hinder mass adoption of Linux on the desktop (a.k.a. fragmentation).

This is like saying it is a universal complaint that freedom of the press with different viewpoints being expressed in different publications is one of the worst things that hinder an opressive global dictatorship (a.k.a. individuality).


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Offline

#8 2019-10-17 10:18:10

dan_kasak
Member
Registered: 2019-08-02
Posts: 3

Re: Does the big fuss about "universal packaging" make any sense?

I think the argument that it's hard for *big* companies to support Linux is pretty stupid. It's loose change for them. On the other end of the scale, it does make a difference. I'm the lead ( and sometimes sole ) developer of an ETL framework. I had previously distributed everything as a fully configured VM. It was the only feasible option that I could support. In the past year, I've switched to Flatpak, and it makes a *huge* difference. We can now support basically any distro ( anything that has flatpak ), and it takes far less effort to do all the maintenance that I'd prefer to not have to do at all.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB