The state of universal packaging in Debian

News and discussion about development of the Debian OS itself

Re: The state of universal packaging in Debian

Postby Danielsan » 2016-06-22 18:31

I am happy about bundle package, but I am lesser happy about Canonical/Ubuntu stuff, anyway flatpack is older and more reliable than snap, is a community project and not a secret project by a crew of fanboys, most important is not hosted in a proprietary server and you don't need to subscribe any CLA. If I have to choice which bundle of course flatpak is my choice.
However when snap is under a huge marketing campaign for not what reason, I feel these bundle software are a good opportunity for me to try some software which is really impossible to compile, I think is more reliable using a bundle instead to do: make, make install, make uninstall. Now I could try easily Gimp, Krita or Scribus development branch without going crazy because I am not able to compile them.

I already post this article in an other post but is good to read here as well: ... ource.html


I would add this, only the older distros as problem with different version of packages and libraries guixSD allows different version of packages and libraries stored in the home folder.
User avatar
Posts: 637
Joined: 2010-10-10 22:36

Re: The state of universal packaging in Debian

Postby HuangLao » 2016-06-22 22:23

I have serious doubts as to the ability of the flatpack and/or snap packagers to properly maintain all the depends in each package. IMO the current method has served very well and spreads out the responsibility of maintaining/patching packages. Do we really expect a packager of xyz snap or flatpack to also be an expert on all of the dependencies in question? This sounds like openSSL all over again, except across many distros. ... -disaster/
User avatar
Posts: 485
Joined: 2015-01-27 01:31


Return to Debian Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests