5 ms·

I think either approach makes sense depending on who you are. If your goal is to distribute software across multiple distros and operating systems, bundling de

I think either approach makes sense depending on who you are. If your goal is to distribute software across multiple distros and operating systems, bundling dependencies makes sense. If your goal is to maintain a distro, shared libraries that you can apply a security patch to exactly once is obviously better. But these are two different people with either goal.

bscphil 3y ago
> If your goal is to distribute software across multiple distros and operating systems, bundling dependencies makes sense. Of course, an important "exception to the exception" is when you're making software that can easily be distributed by distributions, e.g. because it's end user software and open source. I think the optimal cases for bundled dependencies are (a) large closed source binaries that never change, like games, and (b) self-deployed software, e.g. something like a server written in Go that is compiled and maintained in its running environment by a single developer or company.
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  The endgame of dependency management is the Nix model. U believe manually packaged software repositories' era is coming to an end.
- duped 3y ago
  > is when you're making software that can easily be distributed by distributions, e.g. because it's end user software and open source. I have trouble understanding why this is desirable for either authors or end users. Even for open source end user applications, I want the software that I'm running to be reflective of the software that was authored and not the software that some distro maintainers think it should be.
  - Denvercoder9 3y ago
    > I want the software that I'm running to be reflective of the software that was authored I don't. As an end-user, I couldn't care less about what the author wanted, I want to run the best possible version of the software. Often that's the version maintained by my distro, as they've put in the effort to make sure all the different software on my system works well together.
rlpb 3y ago
What about the user? If your goal is to consume software for which you need long term reliability, accepting software that bundles an unmaintainable (to you) set of dependencies does not make sense. Unless you have no better option [edit: or if you're paying to delegate your problems to someone else I suppose]. As a user, using software sources that make the same choices Debian makes is always preferable for you if that alternative is available.
- jamesgeck0 3y ago
  Engineering tradeoffs are always tradeoffs. One is not strictly better than the other from the user's perspective. Mandating shared dependencies means that Debian is often running software against a dependency version that the original author did not develop against or test against. Sometimes the Debian package is effectively a fork. This results in Debian-specific bugs which get reported upstream. Distribution-specific bugs are a crappy experience for upstream developers because it wastes their time, and it's a crappy experience for users to be told that their software cannot be supported upstream because it's a fork. Maintaining a huge repository of forked software is also an enormous undertaking. It's common for Debian users to be running fairly old versions of software. This is also not ideal, particularly for desktop users who read upstream documentation and require support when entire features are missing from their antique Debian version.
  - rlpb 3y ago
    You seem to assume that Debian users are hapless and are ending up in these situations by accident. That's not true. Most users choose Debian's model because they want to use software maintained by people who care about their use cases. They use old versions of software by choice, because they want a platform that doesn't change under their feet. Others use Debian or something Debian-based because it is popular, but it is popular because of its quality as a direct result of making these choices, not despite them. If you're an upstream who gets frustrated by Debian users, then it's worth considering why they're using Debian the first place. There are some users who don't want this, and they tend to be the vocal minority. Debian is not the right distribution for them!
totetsu 3y ago
This is how I ended up with three separate the Gimp installs on my system. A deb a snap and a flatpack. And I still can’t get plugins to work.
- KETHERCORTEX 3y ago
  > A deb a snap and a flatpack. You gave up one package system too early. I managed to get the Python 2 plugins working with AppImage bundle someone linked to on some forum.

bscphil 3y ago

> If your goal is to distribute software across multiple distros and operating systems, bundling dependencies makes sense. Of course, an important "exception to the exception" is when you're making software that can easily be distributed by distributions, e.g. because it's end user software and open source. I think the optimal cases for bundled dependencies are (a) large closed source binaries that never change, like games, and (b) self-deployed software, e.g. something like a server written in Go that is compiled and maintained in its running environment by a single developer or company.

Aerbil313 3y ago
The endgame of dependency management is the Nix model. U believe manually packaged software repositories' era is coming to an end.
duped 3y ago
> is when you're making software that can easily be distributed by distributions, e.g. because it's end user software and open source. I have trouble understanding why this is desirable for either authors or end users. Even for open source end user applications, I want the software that I'm running to be reflective of the software that was authored and not the software that some distro maintainers think it should be.
- Denvercoder9 3y ago
  > I want the software that I'm running to be reflective of the software that was authored I don't. As an end-user, I couldn't care less about what the author wanted, I want to run the best possible version of the software. Often that's the version maintained by my distro, as they've put in the effort to make sure all the different software on my system works well together.

rlpb 3y ago

What about the user? If your goal is to consume software for which you need long term reliability, accepting software that bundles an unmaintainable (to you) set of dependencies does not make sense. Unless you have no better option [edit: or if you're paying to delegate your problems to someone else I suppose]. As a user, using software sources that make the same choices Debian makes is always preferable for you if that alternative is available.

jamesgeck0 3y ago
Engineering tradeoffs are always tradeoffs. One is not strictly better than the other from the user's perspective. Mandating shared dependencies means that Debian is often running software against a dependency version that the original author did not develop against or test against. Sometimes the Debian package is effectively a fork. This results in Debian-specific bugs which get reported upstream. Distribution-specific bugs are a crappy experience for upstream developers because it wastes their time, and it's a crappy experience for users to be told that their software cannot be supported upstream because it's a fork. Maintaining a huge repository of forked software is also an enormous undertaking. It's common for Debian users to be running fairly old versions of software. This is also not ideal, particularly for desktop users who read upstream documentation and require support when entire features are missing from their antique Debian version.
- rlpb 3y ago
  You seem to assume that Debian users are hapless and are ending up in these situations by accident. That's not true. Most users choose Debian's model because they want to use software maintained by people who care about their use cases. They use old versions of software by choice, because they want a platform that doesn't change under their feet. Others use Debian or something Debian-based because it is popular, but it is popular because of its quality as a direct result of making these choices, not despite them. If you're an upstream who gets frustrated by Debian users, then it's worth considering why they're using Debian the first place. There are some users who don't want this, and they tend to be the vocal minority. Debian is not the right distribution for them!

totetsu 3y ago

This is how I ended up with three separate the Gimp installs on my system. A deb a snap and a flatpack. And I still can’t get plugins to work.

KETHERCORTEX 3y ago
> A deb a snap and a flatpack. You gave up one package system too early. I managed to get the Python 2 plugins working with AppImage bundle someone linked to on some forum.