4 ms·

7 ways of installing it, but no deb or rpm. Is this the wonderful future of FOSS where developers don't bother working with distribution maintainers anymore?

duped 4y ago
This has been the norm for awhile. No one wants to work with distro maintainers because their model is incompatible with how people build and distribute their software. You either get a curl sh, a tarball, or a wrapper around either of those that pretends to be a .deb or .rpm.
mperham 4y ago
I've distributed a lot of software and DEB/RPM has to be the worst. I'd suggest those distros improve on their developer ergonomics if they want to stay relevant. 100% of my customers use Docker images these days as it is much much easier to use.
- okasaki 4y ago
  I guess that's for web stuff? You wouldn't distribute 'cloc' and similar in a docker image. One hopes.
  - ok_dad 4y ago
    I will refer you to the first tool I thought to Google with "docker image for X": https://hub.docker.com/r/stedolan/jq https://hub.docker.com/r/stedolan/jq Yes, it's despicable.
    - okasaki 4y ago
      10M+ pulls >:O https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc
  - ArchOversight 4y ago
    It's the easiest way to distribute software in a way that is controlled by the author of the software and where the author can reasonably control all of the dependencies installed. This way you are providing a one-stop shop that can easily be run. I have all kinds of tools that are docker containers because its simpler to not have to worry about all kinds of library mismatches or locations of shared libraries, and instead ship a minimal docker container instead.
ok_dad 4y ago
Someday someone will make a hyper-package-managers to be able to manage their packages installed via the thousands of package-managers out there today. Then, several other hyper-package-managers will be developed to cover the cases the first didn't cover. Then comes the hyper-hyper-package-managers...
dec0dedab0de 4y ago
Hasn't it always been rare for developers to maintain distro specific packages? That's why distro's have package maintainers, they also modify the layout and default configurations and whatnot to be consistent with the rest of the distro.
- rcxdude 4y ago
  Yeah, Official debs/rpms are a thing but often completely independent of any distribution's packaging efforts (and they often have very different priorities).
pushedx 4y ago
Go binaries are statically-linked, and this tool doesn’t require any configuration files or other additional files. Binaries are provided on the Releases page, so all you need to do is download one, put it in /usr/local/bin, and it’s essentially guaranteed to work. To upgrade, you download the new release and overwrite it. There’s an argument to be made for not having the version information available for dependency resolution (for scc as a dependency) available in your package manager, but you have to admit that it’s easy enough to install. GitHub doesn’t even mind if you `wget && chmod` from their CDN URL.

duped 4y ago

This has been the norm for awhile. No one wants to work with distro maintainers because their model is incompatible with how people build and distribute their software. You either get a curl sh, a tarball, or a wrapper around either of those that pretends to be a .deb or .rpm.

mperham 4y ago

I've distributed a lot of software and DEB/RPM has to be the worst. I'd suggest those distros improve on their developer ergonomics if they want to stay relevant. 100% of my customers use Docker images these days as it is much much easier to use.

okasaki 4y ago
I guess that's for web stuff? You wouldn't distribute 'cloc' and similar in a docker image. One hopes.
- ok_dad 4y ago
  I will refer you to the first tool I thought to Google with "docker image for X": https://hub.docker.com/r/stedolan/jq https://hub.docker.com/r/stedolan/jq Yes, it's despicable.
  - okasaki 4y ago
    10M+ pulls >:O https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc
- ArchOversight 4y ago
  It's the easiest way to distribute software in a way that is controlled by the author of the software and where the author can reasonably control all of the dependencies installed. This way you are providing a one-stop shop that can easily be run. I have all kinds of tools that are docker containers because its simpler to not have to worry about all kinds of library mismatches or locations of shared libraries, and instead ship a minimal docker container instead.

ok_dad 4y ago

Someday someone will make a hyper-package-managers to be able to manage their packages installed via the thousands of package-managers out there today. Then, several other hyper-package-managers will be developed to cover the cases the first didn't cover. Then comes the hyper-hyper-package-managers...

dec0dedab0de 4y ago

Hasn't it always been rare for developers to maintain distro specific packages? That's why distro's have package maintainers, they also modify the layout and default configurations and whatnot to be consistent with the rest of the distro.

rcxdude 4y ago
Yeah, Official debs/rpms are a thing but often completely independent of any distribution's packaging efforts (and they often have very different priorities).

pushedx 4y ago

Go binaries are statically-linked, and this tool doesn’t require any configuration files or other additional files. Binaries are provided on the Releases page, so all you need to do is download one, put it in /usr/local/bin, and it’s essentially guaranteed to work. To upgrade, you download the new release and overwrite it. There’s an argument to be made for not having the version information available for dependency resolution (for scc as a dependency) available in your package manager, but you have to admit that it’s easy enough to install. GitHub doesn’t even mind if you `wget && chmod` from their CDN URL.