2 ms·
The distribution provides support for much longer than upstream does. Also, packaging is actual work. Just because some hipsters in some company consider it coo
by choeger 6y ago
The distribution provides support for much longer than upstream does. Also, packaging is actual work. Just because some hipsters in some company consider it cool to release new features every 4 weeks, it does not mean that the volunteers of some linux distribution can keep up with thag. So if you want your distribution to work well, you should focus on workable and transparent interfaces.
If you are happy with the support cycles of your upstream and can live with a black box, on the other hand you don't need a distribution in the first place.
Besides, the whole "vendor everything, link statically" idea works well only for the leafs of the tree. Guess what Rust would do if llvm was not a readily usable library but a bunch of C++ files directly used inside clang? Thanks to the Rust mode of operation, it is impossible to do with the rust compiler what they did with llvm.
- anotherhue 6y ago> on the other hand you don't need a distribution in the first place. I think you're right about that, I personally want as little distribution as possible. FreeBSD ports or Arch AUR work well for me. The idea of solidifying other people's software into a bundle and then maintaining it (with necessarily limited expertise) seems like a loosing battle.
- beojan 6y agoAs someone who uses the AUR a lot, it's really the perfect example of how you just won't update software if it isn't done automatically by the distro package manager, particularly when you use -git packages.