6 ms·

After working with Debian/Ubuntu packaging, and switching to Arch and Pacman, it is so much easier to create/maintain packages on Arch and Alpine distros than t

After working with Debian/Ubuntu packaging, and switching to Arch and Pacman, it is so much easier to create/maintain packages on Arch and Alpine distros than the alternatives.

taeric 7y ago
My age has given me too much cynicism. Green field is always easier. Usually does a ton less, though. In some cases, shedding requirements is good. In most, it is just a race to feature parity. :(
- linsomniac 7y ago
  Perhaps, but as a counter example I'd compare it to RPM. RPM is a solid, mature, heavily used package format. And the .spec file I've always found to be so much easier to work with than Debian packaging. I've made many debs, and my current work uses debs for deploying all our software, but I still find it so much harder to make them. I have a workflow for my current packages, but if I want to take a new piece of software and turn it into a .deb, it is always pretty painful. I usually have to ask a debian packager for help. They are always super nice and helpful, but I just wish I could package things myself. Seems like if you package .debs all the time, it becomes easier. But as an infrequent packager, I find RPMs .spec to be much easier to manage than Debian's system.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    I agree; I do .deb packaging just infrequently enough that every time I go to do it, I have to re-learn it nearly from scratch. And it's not simple at all.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
      I'm fond of FPM for this kind of thing. It provides a usable interface over a bunch of package formats and explicitly aims to make the whole thing painless, and in my experience it succeeds.
  - taeric 7y ago
    I suspect it is easier, per package. Is it easier for all of them, though? An odd spot where I suspect it is not a simple summation of effort.
  - CameronNemo 7y ago
    I think spec files are asinine. Throwing it all in one specially formatted file and using weird macros to define the build steps. Deb is terrible too, but mostly just because they split everything up too much. The actual file formats are nice to work with. E.g. the rules file is just a make script and the install files are lists of files to install and their destinations. Ports systems like alpine/arch/void are nice, but they also handle less (except for void maybe, that ports system has built in support for a lot of different build systems, so packaging a cmake or meson project is a breeze).
  - Conan_Kudo 7y ago
    I prefer RPM packaging over all major styles of dsc (Debian Source Control) packaging as well, but... It's actually possible to use RPM spec files to build Debian packages: https://github.com/debbuild/debbuild https://github.com/debbuild/debbuild And I've been going through and slowly porting much of the RPM ecosystem common macros to run on debbuild so that spec files can be reused to comply with Debian packaging policies as much as possible: https://github.com/debbuild/debbuild-macros https://github.com/debbuild/debbuild-macros (Disclosure: I'm the current maintainer of debbuild)
LessDmesg 7y ago
After using Ubuntu then Debian, and briefly trying Arch, it is so much easier to manage packages on Gentoo than the alternatives. USE flags, package.mask and the slots system are indispensable. And you get freedom from systemd.

After working with Debian/Ubuntu packaging, and switching to Arch and Pacman, it is so much easier to create/maintain packages on Arch and Alpine distros than the alternatives.

taeric 7y ago

My age has given me too much cynicism. Green field is always easier. Usually does a ton less, though. In some cases, shedding requirements is good. In most, it is just a race to feature parity. :(

linsomniac 7y ago
Perhaps, but as a counter example I'd compare it to RPM. RPM is a solid, mature, heavily used package format. And the .spec file I've always found to be so much easier to work with than Debian packaging. I've made many debs, and my current work uses debs for deploying all our software, but I still find it so much harder to make them. I have a workflow for my current packages, but if I want to take a new piece of software and turn it into a .deb, it is always pretty painful. I usually have to ask a debian packager for help. They are always super nice and helpful, but I just wish I could package things myself. Seems like if you package .debs all the time, it becomes easier. But as an infrequent packager, I find RPMs .spec to be much easier to manage than Debian's system.
- kelnos 7y ago
  I agree; I do .deb packaging just infrequently enough that every time I go to do it, I have to re-learn it nearly from scratch. And it's not simple at all.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    I'm fond of FPM for this kind of thing. It provides a usable interface over a bunch of package formats and explicitly aims to make the whole thing painless, and in my experience it succeeds.
- taeric 7y ago
  I suspect it is easier, per package. Is it easier for all of them, though? An odd spot where I suspect it is not a simple summation of effort.
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  I think spec files are asinine. Throwing it all in one specially formatted file and using weird macros to define the build steps. Deb is terrible too, but mostly just because they split everything up too much. The actual file formats are nice to work with. E.g. the rules file is just a make script and the install files are lists of files to install and their destinations. Ports systems like alpine/arch/void are nice, but they also handle less (except for void maybe, that ports system has built in support for a lot of different build systems, so packaging a cmake or meson project is a breeze).
- Conan_Kudo 7y ago
  I prefer RPM packaging over all major styles of dsc (Debian Source Control) packaging as well, but... It's actually possible to use RPM spec files to build Debian packages: https://github.com/debbuild/debbuild https://github.com/debbuild/debbuild And I've been going through and slowly porting much of the RPM ecosystem common macros to run on debbuild so that spec files can be reused to comply with Debian packaging policies as much as possible: https://github.com/debbuild/debbuild-macros https://github.com/debbuild/debbuild-macros (Disclosure: I'm the current maintainer of debbuild)

LessDmesg 7y ago

After using Ubuntu then Debian, and briefly trying Arch, it is so much easier to manage packages on Gentoo than the alternatives. USE flags, package.mask and the slots system are indispensable. And you get freedom from systemd.