3 ms·

> I want people who will actually use the package to package the software they need, and distro maintainer to supervise that. Erm... Your original comment said

by troupo 1y ago

> I want people who will actually use the package to package the software they need, and distro maintainer to supervise that. Erm... Your original comment said "you should not package for distros, distros should package for themselves. You just distribute your sources." > Yep, people who won't use Erlang shouldn't package Erlang. But on the other hand, developers who won't use Erlang on platform X shouldn't package Erlang on platform X. So... Who's gonna package it if you say that distros should package it? > The "we absolutely need flatpak because otherwise it fundamentally doesn't work" philosophy is, to me, very close to saying "we must consolidate everything under one single OS. Bullshit. What you advocate for is "why bother with ease of use and convenience, everyone should learn how to compile and package everything from scratch" > If you don't want to contribute to your distro The user of a package doesn't necessarily know how to package something, and shouldn't need to.

palata 1y ago
> Erm... Your original comment said "you should not package for distros, distros should package for themselves. You just distribute your sources." Yes. I said "distros", not "the distro maintainers". The distro is the maintainers + the packagers, and packagers can be random contributors (I package stuff for my distro when needed, but I am not a distro maintainer). > So... Who's gonna package it if you say that distros should package it? People who will use Erlang on that particular distro. Under the supervision of the distro maintainers. There is typically some kind of hierarchy where there are the "community" packages that are just "untested" (sometimes they can get promoted to a more trusted level), and the "core" packages that are handled by the distro maintainers. > What you advocate for is "why bother with ease of use and convenience, everyone should learn how to compile and package everything from scratch" Not at all, but it seems like you don't know how it currently works in traditional distros, and you don't understand what I'm saying (probably I'm not being clear, that's on me). What I advocate seems absolute common sense: "the package maintainer(s) should understand and use the package on the distro for which is is packaged". The vast majority (probably almost the totality of) users of Ubuntu or Arch have never had a need to package anything, because everything is already there. Because those distros are very popular. Depending on your choice of distro, it may happen that a package hasn't been contributed or even that it doesn't compile (e.g. if you use musl). In that case, if you want it, you need to contribute it. But if you use musl, you implicitly accept this and are supposed to know what you are doing. > The user of a package doesn't necessarily know how to package something, and shouldn't need to. That's your opinion. I would say that a Gentoo user is expected to have some idea about compiling packages, otherwise they should not use Gentoo. Ubuntu is targetting people who don't want to know how it works, that's fine too. Diversity is good. What I don't like, is Windows-minded people ("I shouldn't have to understand how my computer works") who come to Linux and push for everybody to become like them. "We should all use systemd and Flatpak, and pay one team of 50 people who know how that works, and the rest of us should just use it and not know about it" -> I disagree with that. Those who think that should just use Ubuntu/Windows/macOS and leave me alone. And for those who use Ubuntu, they should remember that they don't pay for it next time they say "it's shit because it doesn't do exactly what I want".
- troupo 1y ago
  > and packagers can be random contributors So who's going to maintain the packages? Who's going to test them against other packages? Against distro upgrades? Who's going to fix issues? > Not at all, but it seems like you don't know how it currently works in traditional distros I do. A small number of people are doing the thankless job of packaging, maintaining, fixing, testing a multitude of packages. And their efforts are needlessly duplicated across several packaging systems. > What I don't like, is Windows-minded people ("I shouldn't have to understand how my computer works") who come to Linux and push for everybody to become like them What I don't like is people assuming ill intent behind "you know what would be great? If we didn't assume that every user has to package their own packages across 15 different incompatible packaging systems".
  - palata 1y ago
    > So who's going to maintain the packages? Who's going to test them against other packages? Against distro upgrades? Who's going to fix issues? I feel like you're not reading what I'm writing. The community. That's how open source works: if you use an open source project and it has a bug, you can fix it and open an MR. If the upstream project doesn't want your fix, you can fork. Nothing forces the upstream project to accept your contributions. When they do, they take the responsibility for them (to some extent, as in: it is now part of their codebase). If your distribution doesn't have a package you want, you can make it for yourself, locally. You can contribute it to a community repo (most distros have that). Maybe at some point, the distro maintainers will decide to take over your package in a more official repo, maybe not. Even if you are not the official maintainer of a package, if you use it and see a problem, you can contribute a fix. In the open source world, most people are freeriders. A (big) subset of those feel entitled and are simply jerks. And a minority of people are not freeriders and actually contribute. That's the deal. > And their efforts are needlessly duplicated across several packaging systems. No! No no no no! If they don't want to put efforts into that, they don't have to. They could use Ubuntu, or Windows, or macOS. If they contribute to, say, Alpine or Gentoo, that's because they want to. I am not on Gentoo in the hope that it will become Ubuntu, that would be weird. But you sound like you want to solve "my Gentoo problems" by making it look more like Ubuntu (in the idea). Don't use Gentoo if you don't want to, and leave me alone! Don't try to solve my problems, you're not even a Gentoo user.

by troupo 1y ago

palata 1y ago

> Erm... Your original comment said "you should not package for distros, distros should package for themselves. You just distribute your sources." Yes. I said "distros", not "the distro maintainers". The distro is the maintainers + the packagers, and packagers can be random contributors (I package stuff for my distro when needed, but I am not a distro maintainer). > So... Who's gonna package it if you say that distros should package it? People who will use Erlang on that particular distro. Under the supervision of the distro maintainers. There is typically some kind of hierarchy where there are the "community" packages that are just "untested" (sometimes they can get promoted to a more trusted level), and the "core" packages that are handled by the distro maintainers. > What you advocate for is "why bother with ease of use and convenience, everyone should learn how to compile and package everything from scratch" Not at all, but it seems like you don't know how it currently works in traditional distros, and you don't understand what I'm saying (probably I'm not being clear, that's on me). What I advocate seems absolute common sense: "the package maintainer(s) should understand and use the package on the distro for which is is packaged". The vast majority (probably almost the totality of) users of Ubuntu or Arch have never had a need to package anything, because everything is already there. Because those distros are very popular. Depending on your choice of distro, it may happen that a package hasn't been contributed or even that it doesn't compile (e.g. if you use musl). In that case, if you want it, you need to contribute it. But if you use musl, you implicitly accept this and are supposed to know what you are doing. > The user of a package doesn't necessarily know how to package something, and shouldn't need to. That's your opinion. I would say that a Gentoo user is expected to have some idea about compiling packages, otherwise they should not use Gentoo. Ubuntu is targetting people who don't want to know how it works, that's fine too. Diversity is good. What I don't like, is Windows-minded people ("I shouldn't have to understand how my computer works") who come to Linux and push for everybody to become like them. "We should all use systemd and Flatpak, and pay one team of 50 people who know how that works, and the rest of us should just use it and not know about it" -> I disagree with that. Those who think that should just use Ubuntu/Windows/macOS and leave me alone. And for those who use Ubuntu, they should remember that they don't pay for it next time they say "it's shit because it doesn't do exactly what I want".

troupo 1y ago
> and packagers can be random contributors So who's going to maintain the packages? Who's going to test them against other packages? Against distro upgrades? Who's going to fix issues? > Not at all, but it seems like you don't know how it currently works in traditional distros I do. A small number of people are doing the thankless job of packaging, maintaining, fixing, testing a multitude of packages. And their efforts are needlessly duplicated across several packaging systems. > What I don't like, is Windows-minded people ("I shouldn't have to understand how my computer works") who come to Linux and push for everybody to become like them What I don't like is people assuming ill intent behind "you know what would be great? If we didn't assume that every user has to package their own packages across 15 different incompatible packaging systems".
- palata 1y ago
  > So who's going to maintain the packages? Who's going to test them against other packages? Against distro upgrades? Who's going to fix issues? I feel like you're not reading what I'm writing. The community. That's how open source works: if you use an open source project and it has a bug, you can fix it and open an MR. If the upstream project doesn't want your fix, you can fork. Nothing forces the upstream project to accept your contributions. When they do, they take the responsibility for them (to some extent, as in: it is now part of their codebase). If your distribution doesn't have a package you want, you can make it for yourself, locally. You can contribute it to a community repo (most distros have that). Maybe at some point, the distro maintainers will decide to take over your package in a more official repo, maybe not. Even if you are not the official maintainer of a package, if you use it and see a problem, you can contribute a fix. In the open source world, most people are freeriders. A (big) subset of those feel entitled and are simply jerks. And a minority of people are not freeriders and actually contribute. That's the deal. > And their efforts are needlessly duplicated across several packaging systems. No! No no no no! If they don't want to put efforts into that, they don't have to. They could use Ubuntu, or Windows, or macOS. If they contribute to, say, Alpine or Gentoo, that's because they want to. I am not on Gentoo in the hope that it will become Ubuntu, that would be weird. But you sound like you want to solve "my Gentoo problems" by making it look more like Ubuntu (in the idea). Don't use Gentoo if you don't want to, and leave me alone! Don't try to solve my problems, you're not even a Gentoo user.