3 ms·

> language package management systems try to solve solve the problem that has been solved by Linux distributions a long time ago, and they typically do it very

> language package management systems try to solve solve the problem that has been solved by Linux distributions a long time ago, and they typically do it very poorly. Yet, every main Linux distribution has its own packaging format (deb, rpm, etc) , package naming convention, dependency resolver, package release strategy (rolling, fixed, etc) , package build & deployment system (source, binary, per arch binary, etc), and package install peculiarities (custom, upstream focused, system wide, in a chroot, in a snap, etc), reproducibility constraints, etc... So it's not like it's a _solved_ problem for Linux distributions. Not to mention that most distribution package managers are system wide, while language package managers are often environment based.

cycomanic 4y ago
> > language package management systems try to solve solve the problem that has been solved by Linux distributions a long time ago, and they typically do it very poorly. > Yet, every main Linux distribution has its own packaging format (deb, rpm, etc) , package naming convention, dependency resolver, package release strategy (rolling, fixed, etc) , package build & deployment system (source, binary, per arch binary, etc), and package install peculiarities (custom, upstream focused, system wide, in a chroot, in a snap, etc), reproducibility constraints, etc... > So it's not like it's a _solved_ problem for Linux distributions. Just because someone reinvents the wheel does not mean it wasn't invented (solved before hand. I would also argue each distro package manager is miles ahead of any language one. > Not to mention that most distribution package managers are system wide, while language package managers are often environment based. That's the thing I was alluding to in the second part of my post, if developers would be more careful about backwards compatibility we wouldn't have to use environments. I do admit that packages for apps are more of an issue, it would be nice to upgrade those without having to upgrade the rest of the system.

cycomanic 4y ago

> > language package management systems try to solve solve the problem that has been solved by Linux distributions a long time ago, and they typically do it very poorly. > Yet, every main Linux distribution has its own packaging format (deb, rpm, etc) , package naming convention, dependency resolver, package release strategy (rolling, fixed, etc) , package build & deployment system (source, binary, per arch binary, etc), and package install peculiarities (custom, upstream focused, system wide, in a chroot, in a snap, etc), reproducibility constraints, etc... > So it's not like it's a _solved_ problem for Linux distributions. Just because someone reinvents the wheel does not mean it wasn't invented (solved before hand. I would also argue each distro package manager is miles ahead of any language one. > Not to mention that most distribution package managers are system wide, while language package managers are often environment based. That's the thing I was alluding to in the second part of my post, if developers would be more careful about backwards compatibility we wouldn't have to use environments. I do admit that packages for apps are more of an issue, it would be nice to upgrade those without having to upgrade the rest of the system.