4 ms·

Redhat and Ubuntu should bury the packaging hatchet and arrive at a single packaging format. Doesnt matter if it is snap or flatpak. That would have far reachin

Redhat and Ubuntu should bury the packaging hatchet and arrive at a single packaging format. Doesnt matter if it is snap or flatpak. That would have far reaching ramifications for the adoption of Linux.

chrisseaton 7y ago
A Linux distribution’s work is the packaging format and tools - deciding to use a common one would basically be shutting down the other distro.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Good. There are way too many distros anyway.
- teilo 7y ago
  Eh... it's a lot more than that. It's the specific packages themselves, and how those packages are built, and how the OS is structured, which versions of libraries are used, how certain common tools are named (think python vs python3). The philosophy of different distros can be radically different. Startup environments can be completely different. Defaults and config in different places. Packages are patched differently. Libraries named differently (think dynamic linking to specific library versions). Init vs. systemd. Wayland vs. XWindows. Some distros even eliminate the distinction between /bin and /sbin. If RHEL, for example, adopted apt, a RHEL pkg likely won't work on Debian. That's why Snap, Flatpak and AppImage are what they are: completely self-contained or statically linked with no dependence on system libraries or image trees.
- olau 7y ago
  Actually, the packaging format and tooling is only a very small part of the time spent by the people contributing to the distribution. Go read debian-devel - only a very few people are involved in those things. As far as I can tell, almost all the time is spent polishing and integrating packages and fixing temporary regressions, that sort of thing. RedHat and Debian have different standards for various aspects of the package contents, so you can't just use a package from one and expect it to work on the other, even if the package format and install tool was the same.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
loginwithgithub 7y ago
Have you read the article? AppImage wins by a factor of two to three in terms of speed and size, runs on both Red Hat and Ubuntu. I'd say it is more universal than the distro-made formats.
jeffwithboo 7y ago
AppImage runs on Red Hat and on Ubuntu, and it is independent from both, so much more universal. Also, the smallest and the fastest according to the article.
- sandGorgon 7y ago
  Sure it would have been nice if both of them converge on this. Unfortunately Redhat is officially supporting flatpak and Ubuntu is officially supporting snap. There are there these huge mailing threads where they talked about why they wouldn't adopt one of the existing ones (zeroinstall, appimage, etc)
  - loginwithgithub 7y ago
    imho the only way to get this solved is users and app developers using a community based format that is not owned by the operating system companies

chrisseaton 7y ago

A Linux distribution’s work is the packaging format and tools - deciding to use a common one would basically be shutting down the other distro.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
Good. There are way too many distros anyway.
teilo 7y ago
Eh... it's a lot more than that. It's the specific packages themselves, and how those packages are built, and how the OS is structured, which versions of libraries are used, how certain common tools are named (think python vs python3). The philosophy of different distros can be radically different. Startup environments can be completely different. Defaults and config in different places. Packages are patched differently. Libraries named differently (think dynamic linking to specific library versions). Init vs. systemd. Wayland vs. XWindows. Some distros even eliminate the distinction between /bin and /sbin. If RHEL, for example, adopted apt, a RHEL pkg likely won't work on Debian. That's why Snap, Flatpak and AppImage are what they are: completely self-contained or statically linked with no dependence on system libraries or image trees.
olau 7y ago
Actually, the packaging format and tooling is only a very small part of the time spent by the people contributing to the distribution. Go read debian-devel - only a very few people are involved in those things. As far as I can tell, almost all the time is spent polishing and integrating packages and fixing temporary regressions, that sort of thing. RedHat and Debian have different standards for various aspects of the package contents, so you can't just use a package from one and expect it to work on the other, even if the package format and install tool was the same.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

loginwithgithub 7y ago

Have you read the article? AppImage wins by a factor of two to three in terms of speed and size, runs on both Red Hat and Ubuntu. I'd say it is more universal than the distro-made formats.

jeffwithboo 7y ago

AppImage runs on Red Hat and on Ubuntu, and it is independent from both, so much more universal. Also, the smallest and the fastest according to the article.

sandGorgon 7y ago
Sure it would have been nice if both of them converge on this. Unfortunately Redhat is officially supporting flatpak and Ubuntu is officially supporting snap. There are there these huge mailing threads where they talked about why they wouldn't adopt one of the existing ones (zeroinstall, appimage, etc)
- loginwithgithub 7y ago
  imho the only way to get this solved is users and app developers using a community based format that is not owned by the operating system companies