5 ms·
> So the package repositories are nothing but convenience for the end-user. Isn't conveniencing the end user kind of the goal of all software? Surely there is
by BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
> So the package repositories are nothing but convenience for the end-user.
Isn't conveniencing the end user kind of the goal of all software? Surely there is value in tracking dependencies and conflicts (and in avoiding problems that can arise without these things) that should not reasonably be dismissed as "nothing but convenience". Perhaps I could say the same of every useful thing you've worked on.
- Xylakant 14y ago> Isn't conveniencing the end user kind of the goal of all software? I'm not debating that nor am I dismissing that package repositories provide tremendous value to the user. However, the parent asserts that package repositories act as a gatekeeper, thus making it harder for users to install software that is not in the package repositories. That's not true, since linux/BSD/MacOS package repositories just enhance an open system. In that context, they're mere convenience, not a requirement.
- meaty 14y agoUntil you have to get sstp-client, networkmanager-sstp versions that work on your particular API versions... External dependency hell. Not in the repository, not invited.
- Xylakant 14y agoI fail to understand your point. For any software, you can create a deb, rpm, ebuild that correctly models the dependencies and install it on the system. No package repo required. You can provide a package repo for any Linux system and install it from there, as for example the varnish people do. Both options provide full dependency resolution without a gatekeeper.