6 ms·

The problem is that now you have to package for N distros. And the people who run the distro may not want to spend time on it, so you have to do it yourself.

by sbt 1y ago

Arnavion 1y ago
It doesn't have to be gated by "the people who run the distro". I started packaging a few pieces of software for a distro I use because I wanted to use that software, and I don't "run" the distros in any capacity. Package maintainers aren't born that way, they become that way by volunteering, just like most everything in Linux. If you don't have even one user willing to do that for the distro they use, you probably weren't going to have users on that distro anyway.
- troyvit 1y ago
  > Package maintainers aren't born that way, they become that way by volunteering, just like most everything in Linux. I feel like there's a constant tug of war on this issue. If you leave it up to app developers then they have to package their app for N distros. If you leave it up to the distro maintainers then they have to compile N apps for their distro. I don't envy either group given how different distros are and how varied apps are in quality, methodology, etc. I look at Podman. In my opinion it could be (could have been?) a huge disruptor, but its RedHat (or Fedora or CentOS or whatever the hell those guys do now) versions are way higher than versions for other distributions, which creates for me (just a home user) an interoperability problem between all my different Linux boxes. RedHat if anybody has the resources to fix this but I guess they'd rather try to use it as a way to force adoption of their distro? I don't even know. Both the apps and the distros are volunteer-heavy. App packaging is a big job for either side. I'm still hopeful that Flatpak can help that job
- Ferret7446 1y ago
  That's a massive waste of resources and time. If you are unwilling to use tools like Flatpak, then that limits what distros you can make. e.g., in a world without Flatpak, only distros with X users can exist. In a world with Flatpak, distros with X/10 users can exist. Another way to think about it: if you want to make/use your own distro, then using Flatpak will cut down the amount of work you have to do by some large multiple. You're free to not use it, just like you're free to install custom electrical sockets in your house and make custom adaptors for every single appliance you buy. Standardization/centralization exists for a reason.
palata 1y ago
You're saying the exact opposite of the original point, which is: you should not package for distros, distros should package for themselves. You just distribute your sources. You are a good candidate to package for your distro, so there's that. And then for a random distro, if nobody feels like packaging for it, then it's just not there. Either there is not enough interest in your project, or there is not enough interest in the distro itself.
- troupo 1y ago
  > distros should package for themselves. You just distribute your sources. That's how you ended up with Erlang being split into 20+ packages on Ubuntu/Debian in the past. Because it was packaged by people who know little about erlang, and had too much time on their hands probably. And that is the main issue: you want distro maintainers to compile and package every single pieces of software under the sun, but they can't possibly know every piece of software, how it works, or how it's supposed to work. Times that by the number of distros.
  - palata 1y ago
    > you want distro maintainers to compile and package every single pieces of software under the sun No. I want people who will actually use the package to package the software they need, and distro maintainer to supervise that. > Because it was packaged by people who know little about erlang Yep, people who won't use Erlang shouldn't package Erlang. But on the other hand, developers who won't use Erlang on platform X shouldn't package Erlang on platform X. The "we absolutely need flatpak because otherwise it fundamentally doesn't work" philosophy is, to me, very close to saying "we must consolidate everything under one single OS. Everybody should use the exact same thing otherwise it doesn't work". That's not what I want. I want to have freedom, and the cost of it is that I may have to package stuff from time to time. If you don't want to contribute to your distro, choose a super popular distro where everything is already packaged (and used!). Or use macOS. Or use Windows. You don't get to complain about Alpine Linux not having a package you want: you chose Alpine, that was part of the deal.
    - 1y ago

The problem is that now you have to package for N distros. And the people who run the distro may not want to spend time on it, so you have to do it yourself.

by sbt 1y ago

The problem is that now you have to package for N distros. And the people who run the distro may not want to spend time on it, so you have to do it yourself.

Arnavion 1y ago

It doesn't have to be gated by "the people who run the distro". I started packaging a few pieces of software for a distro I use because I wanted to use that software, and I don't "run" the distros in any capacity. Package maintainers aren't born that way, they become that way by volunteering, just like most everything in Linux. If you don't have even one user willing to do that for the distro they use, you probably weren't going to have users on that distro anyway.

troyvit 1y ago
> Package maintainers aren't born that way, they become that way by volunteering, just like most everything in Linux. I feel like there's a constant tug of war on this issue. If you leave it up to app developers then they have to package their app for N distros. If you leave it up to the distro maintainers then they have to compile N apps for their distro. I don't envy either group given how different distros are and how varied apps are in quality, methodology, etc. I look at Podman. In my opinion it could be (could have been?) a huge disruptor, but its RedHat (or Fedora or CentOS or whatever the hell those guys do now) versions are way higher than versions for other distributions, which creates for me (just a home user) an interoperability problem between all my different Linux boxes. RedHat if anybody has the resources to fix this but I guess they'd rather try to use it as a way to force adoption of their distro? I don't even know. Both the apps and the distros are volunteer-heavy. App packaging is a big job for either side. I'm still hopeful that Flatpak can help that job
Ferret7446 1y ago
That's a massive waste of resources and time. If you are unwilling to use tools like Flatpak, then that limits what distros you can make. e.g., in a world without Flatpak, only distros with X users can exist. In a world with Flatpak, distros with X/10 users can exist. Another way to think about it: if you want to make/use your own distro, then using Flatpak will cut down the amount of work you have to do by some large multiple. You're free to not use it, just like you're free to install custom electrical sockets in your house and make custom adaptors for every single appliance you buy. Standardization/centralization exists for a reason.

palata 1y ago

You're saying the exact opposite of the original point, which is: you should not package for distros, distros should package for themselves. You just distribute your sources. You are a good candidate to package for your distro, so there's that. And then for a random distro, if nobody feels like packaging for it, then it's just not there. Either there is not enough interest in your project, or there is not enough interest in the distro itself.

troupo 1y ago
> distros should package for themselves. You just distribute your sources. That's how you ended up with Erlang being split into 20+ packages on Ubuntu/Debian in the past. Because it was packaged by people who know little about erlang, and had too much time on their hands probably. And that is the main issue: you want distro maintainers to compile and package every single pieces of software under the sun, but they can't possibly know every piece of software, how it works, or how it's supposed to work. Times that by the number of distros.
- palata 1y ago
  > you want distro maintainers to compile and package every single pieces of software under the sun No. I want people who will actually use the package to package the software they need, and distro maintainer to supervise that. > Because it was packaged by people who know little about erlang Yep, people who won't use Erlang shouldn't package Erlang. But on the other hand, developers who won't use Erlang on platform X shouldn't package Erlang on platform X. The "we absolutely need flatpak because otherwise it fundamentally doesn't work" philosophy is, to me, very close to saying "we must consolidate everything under one single OS. Everybody should use the exact same thing otherwise it doesn't work". That's not what I want. I want to have freedom, and the cost of it is that I may have to package stuff from time to time. If you don't want to contribute to your distro, choose a super popular distro where everything is already packaged (and used!). Or use macOS. Or use Windows. You don't get to complain about Alpine Linux not having a package you want: you chose Alpine, that was part of the deal.
  - 1y ago