3 ms·
It's unfortunate that it's not so uncommon for upstream software developers to express distaste for packages managers. While the reasons given aren't totally mi
by soraminazuki 5y ago
It's unfortunate that it's not so uncommon for upstream software developers to express distaste for packages managers. While the reasons given aren't totally misguided in many cases, it quickly degrades user experience when each software has their own mechanism for installation.
- jitl 5y agoI’d much rather unzip a tarball into /opt than muck about with Apt et al.
- sodality2 5y agoHow do you expect to update in the case of vulnerabilities? Do you just hope you'll find out about it?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nemetroid 5y agoI agree that this is a bothersome trend, but the use of pip to install system level packages is one of those user experience-degrading custom installation mechanisms. From that perspective, I don't have a problem with this refusal, I actually think it's a good thing, for the reason mentioned in the first comment: > In the long term we want the fact that the AWS CLI is written in Python to be more of an implementation detail than a feature. For Arch, there is a PKGBUILD for the AWS CLI v2 on AUR [1], which produces a package that can be installed, like any other, with the system package manager. There seem to be some problems with packaging it for Fedora, but those issues look orthogonal to the decision not to publish on PyPI [2]. 1: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/aws-cli-v2-bin/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/aws-cli-v2-bin/ 2: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964128 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964128