5 ms·

This is a waste of Sovereign Tech Fund money. That money is supposed to fund the digital sovereignty of Germany and Europe. Yet, they put €500,000 into this. It

by nabla9 8mo ago

This is a waste of Sovereign Tech Fund money. That money is supposed to fund the digital sovereignty of Germany and Europe. Yet, they put €500,000 into this. It seems open-source developers have their own way of performing their own version of corporate capture.

forgotpwd16 8mo ago
Considering Arch is one of the big upstream distros and, alongside Debian and NixOS, one of the big community-run ones, standardizing and improving its foundations is certainly not a waste. Moreover some results are usable beyond Arch, e.g. VOA (for storage and retrieval of signature verifiers). Choosing Rust though does impose some portability limitations. (Even if makes sense to not want to use C in 2020s.)
- nabla9 8mo ago
  This is not improving anything. Overly complex and starting from scratch. They should have picked dome existing package manager instead and contributed to it. Yet another package manager is not justifiable anymore. Always starting new package manager from scratch is the bane of oss it seems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_package_management_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_package_manag...
  - mqus 8mo ago
    But this _is_ improving the pacman ecosystem? Afaict its aiming to be a drop-in replacement of existing tools, but with proper libraries so systems like buildbtw can be built around it.
  - imtringued 8mo ago
    This is not another package manager. https://alpm.archlinux.page/faq.html https://alpm.archlinux.page/faq.html ALPM is not a makepkg/pacman implementation, it is a set of libraries to make it easier to build makepkg/pacman implementations. It's kind of like the OCI image specification, but for the "Dockerfile" portion of Arch Linux package management rather than the binaries. Competitors like Debian don't even have something that is equivalent to PKGBUILD or Dockerfile. You're expected to know how to setup and build a project on your own and then have packaging be a separate step that happens at the end. They are heavily reliant on institutional knowledge of package maintainers and are impenetrable to outsiders that are unwilling to spend days on building their first package.
  - remove-resolve 8mo ago
    ALPM is not new nor is it a package manager. It's a set of packaging tools dating back to 2002, older than most of package managers on that list. These are improvements to the existing ecosystem.

by nabla9 8mo ago

forgotpwd16 8mo ago

Considering Arch is one of the big upstream distros and, alongside Debian and NixOS, one of the big community-run ones, standardizing and improving its foundations is certainly not a waste. Moreover some results are usable beyond Arch, e.g. VOA (for storage and retrieval of signature verifiers). Choosing Rust though does impose some portability limitations. (Even if makes sense to not want to use C in 2020s.)

nabla9 8mo ago
This is not improving anything. Overly complex and starting from scratch. They should have picked dome existing package manager instead and contributed to it. Yet another package manager is not justifiable anymore. Always starting new package manager from scratch is the bane of oss it seems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_package_management_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_package_manag...
- mqus 8mo ago
  But this _is_ improving the pacman ecosystem? Afaict its aiming to be a drop-in replacement of existing tools, but with proper libraries so systems like buildbtw can be built around it.
- imtringued 8mo ago
  This is not another package manager. https://alpm.archlinux.page/faq.html https://alpm.archlinux.page/faq.html ALPM is not a makepkg/pacman implementation, it is a set of libraries to make it easier to build makepkg/pacman implementations. It's kind of like the OCI image specification, but for the "Dockerfile" portion of Arch Linux package management rather than the binaries. Competitors like Debian don't even have something that is equivalent to PKGBUILD or Dockerfile. You're expected to know how to setup and build a project on your own and then have packaging be a separate step that happens at the end. They are heavily reliant on institutional knowledge of package maintainers and are impenetrable to outsiders that are unwilling to spend days on building their first package.
- remove-resolve 8mo ago
  ALPM is not new nor is it a package manager. It's a set of packaging tools dating back to 2002, older than most of package managers on that list. These are improvements to the existing ecosystem.