3 ms·

My "bounce rate" for having to install a package from a third party repository is close to 100%. It's just too much administrative overhead in the long run. I

My "bounce rate" for having to install a package from a third party repository is close to 100%. It's just too much administrative overhead in the long run. I don't run just one machine. This is not laziness, it's a mode of operation. Also, it's a red flag. If you can't get into official repos, what else is wrong with you? Perhaps nothing, perhaps those gatekeepers are gatekeeping too hard. Still, I'm not going to invest my resources to figure it out.

txthinking 7y ago
Thank your serious discussion. I don't deny the official repos , like apt-get, brew. This is an option for developer who can't stand outdate and want to control by self.
Hackbraten 7y ago
Homebrew maintainer here. There are many good reasons for a piece of software not to be included in a default repository. First of all, it’s about prioritizing maintainer workload. It makes sense to draw the line somewhere in order to prevent the backlog from growing. A huge backlog is bad for everyone: it tends to burn out maintainers, causes important (security) updates to slip, and can be frustrating for users. As a package maintenance team, what options do you have to draw a line? You may decide to narrow the scope somewhat arbitrarily (e. g. FOSS only, stable versions only, latest only), add some notability requirement (e. g. 50 or more GitHub stars), or streamline your process (e. g. exclude packages that would require downstream to write and maintain patches). Anything of the above can cause a perfectly trustworthy package not to be included into a default/core repository, leaving 3rd-party repositories as a good enough option. I think it’s super important to be extra vigilant when tapping into a 3rd-party repository. But it would be a little unfair to consider those packages (or their upstream projects) damaged goods. Not saying you did imply the latter; I just felt like chiming in with my point of view.

txthinking 7y ago

Thank your serious discussion. I don't deny the official repos , like apt-get, brew. This is an option for developer who can't stand outdate and want to control by self.

Hackbraten 7y ago

Homebrew maintainer here. There are many good reasons for a piece of software not to be included in a default repository. First of all, it’s about prioritizing maintainer workload. It makes sense to draw the line somewhere in order to prevent the backlog from growing. A huge backlog is bad for everyone: it tends to burn out maintainers, causes important (security) updates to slip, and can be frustrating for users. As a package maintenance team, what options do you have to draw a line? You may decide to narrow the scope somewhat arbitrarily (e. g. FOSS only, stable versions only, latest only), add some notability requirement (e. g. 50 or more GitHub stars), or streamline your process (e. g. exclude packages that would require downstream to write and maintain patches). Anything of the above can cause a perfectly trustworthy package not to be included into a default/core repository, leaving 3rd-party repositories as a good enough option. I think it’s super important to be extra vigilant when tapping into a 3rd-party repository. But it would be a little unfair to consider those packages (or their upstream projects) damaged goods. Not saying you did imply the latter; I just felt like chiming in with my point of view.