4 ms·
Yeah, I am wondering the same. Is this referring to some kind of versioning conflict (like the old Windows DLL Hell)? Does that regularly happen in any Linux d
by saltcured 3y ago
Yeah, I am wondering the same. Is this referring to some kind of versioning conflict (like the old Windows DLL Hell)? Does that regularly happen in any Linux distribution repository? Or is this a matter of people going cowboy and mixing in other random repositories on top of the distro? I see the whole role of the distribution maintainers being to provide a self-consistent repository that doesn't have this kind of problem.
And as a long-time Fedora user, I don't think I've seen such conflicts with the moral equivalent yum/dnf command. But, I am somewhat rigid about not adding third party repos or RPMs to my systems. The only two exceptions I've come to accept are repos from rpmfusion.org and postgresql.org.
While I have certainly seen some bugs in Fedora over the decades, I don't see how some "atomic" solution helps here unless it means reorganizing the community QA resources to test some "minor releases" which batch together a set of package updates, versus trying to support continuous integration where each package can update individually. That would actually worry me though, as my own career experiences cause me to prefer continuous-integration approaches like the traditional Fedora distribution.
- bravetraveler 3y ago> But, I am somewhat rigid about not adding third party repos or RPMs to my systems. This is the reason why packages seem so stable, you're deliberately staying within a well-tested ecosystem. Fedora release upgrades probably go well for you also! Packages themselves are a perfectly fine distribution method [under the same guidance]. Once you start mixing packaging spec guidelines; packages of varying quality, you end up wanting compartmentalization like containers/bubblewrap Off the cuff example: Fedora makes heavy use of macros in their RPM specs. Most third party packages don't.