Re: The state of universal packaging in Debian
Posted: 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: http://www.infoworld.com/article/308626 ... ource.html
EDIT
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.
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: http://www.infoworld.com/article/308626 ... ource.html
EDIT
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.