4 ms·
> Imo there's an identifiable core common to all of these kinds of package managers (..) Indeed. It's hard to see why eg. a prog language would need its own pa
by RetroTechie 9mo ago
> Imo there's an identifiable core common to all of these kinds of package managers (..)
Indeed. It's hard to see why eg. a prog language would need its own package management system.
Separate mechanics from policy. Different groups of software components in a system could have different policies for when to update what, what repositories are allowed etc. But then use the same (1, the system's) package manager to do the work.
- yxhuvud 9mo agoIt is easy to see why the system package managers in that are in use are not sufficient. The distro packages are too bureaucratic and too opinionated about all the wrong things. I don't disagree that it would be nice if there was more interoperability, but so far I havn't seen anyone even try to tackle the different needs that exist for different users. Heck, we really havn't seen anyone trying to build a cross-language package system yet, and that should be a lot easier than trying to bridge the development-distro chasm.
- pxc 9mo ago> The distro packages are too bureaucratic and too opinionated about all the wrong things. For example?