5 ms·

Please forgive my ignorance because my experience with packing is limited PyPI. What makes building packages so difficult? Don't you essentially just include yo

by cpburns2009 9y ago

Please forgive my ignorance because my experience with packing is limited PyPI. What makes building packages so difficult? Don't you essentially just include your binaries, related files, specify dependencies, maybe include pre or post processing scripts, and then finally build the package for the respective packaging system? I'm sure there are subtle differences in configuration and organization between the various systems, but that sounds more like an initial setup pain than something overly complex.

baldfat 9y ago
> PyPI. What makes building packages so difficult? Well the achiles heel for Python is also deployment. The reason why we have so few applications is that each system has differences. RPM, DEB to other Distros or forget you just read this but (SystemD and not SystemD). With a flatpak you have a runtime and the runtime makes the hooks for the development. Linux has a great tool for deploying different packages and it is hardly used. You build the package here and then it will rebuild it for other distros and systems. It could even make Windows and MacOS if they extend it. It is complex to do these things. https://build.opensuse.org/ https://build.opensuse.org/ With a flatpak or snap you just build the one package and it runs everywhere.
- mdekkers 9y ago
  you just build the one package and it runs everywhere If I had a Euro for everytime I heard that, or some variation on that, I would have a lot of Euros
- marenkay 9y ago
  As with every packaging approach we have so far, no. Package manager have nuances, and so have flatpak and snap installations. Also, add Windows and macOS into the mix. Down the drain it is. It's basically what Docker was trying to get out of the way. Funny thing is that actually Go and Rust might be more the solution to the whole packaging dilemma that and packaging solution.
  - baldfat 9y ago
    https://chocolatey.org/ https://chocolatey.org/ is Amazing on Windows and we have several things you can add and it makes for a great application distribution system.
    - marenkay 9y ago
      But it is not the system default package manager, which is what I miss.

baldfat 9y ago

> PyPI. What makes building packages so difficult? Well the achiles heel for Python is also deployment. The reason why we have so few applications is that each system has differences. RPM, DEB to other Distros or forget you just read this but (SystemD and not SystemD). With a flatpak you have a runtime and the runtime makes the hooks for the development. Linux has a great tool for deploying different packages and it is hardly used. You build the package here and then it will rebuild it for other distros and systems. It could even make Windows and MacOS if they extend it. It is complex to do these things. https://build.opensuse.org/ https://build.opensuse.org/ With a flatpak or snap you just build the one package and it runs everywhere.

mdekkers 9y ago
you just build the one package and it runs everywhere If I had a Euro for everytime I heard that, or some variation on that, I would have a lot of Euros
marenkay 9y ago
As with every packaging approach we have so far, no. Package manager have nuances, and so have flatpak and snap installations. Also, add Windows and macOS into the mix. Down the drain it is. It's basically what Docker was trying to get out of the way. Funny thing is that actually Go and Rust might be more the solution to the whole packaging dilemma that and packaging solution.
- baldfat 9y ago
  https://chocolatey.org/ https://chocolatey.org/ is Amazing on Windows and we have several things you can add and it makes for a great application distribution system.
  - marenkay 9y ago
    But it is not the system default package manager, which is what I miss.