Page 2 of 2

Re: The state of universal packaging in Debian

PostPosted: 2016-06-22 18:31
by Danielsan
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.

Re: The state of universal packaging in Debian

PostPosted: 2016-06-22 22:23
by HuangLao
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.

https://www.isotoma.com/blog/2008/05/14 ... -disaster/