3 ms·
"i find the centralized packaging system flawed ... because on the long term its unsustainable" Could you elaborate on why you think this?
by gnosis 13y ago
"i find the centralized packaging system flawed ... because on the long term its unsustainable"
Could you elaborate on why you think this?
- systems 13y agoi hope engaging in this clearly off topic, wont offend others linux and foss rely on volunteer effort, therefore efficiency matters a lot, inefficient system will loose volunteers and momentum, i think its surprising the system lasted for so long , but then i believe the number of surviving distros is in decline and even less so the number of package management system anyway, maybe my usage of the word centralized and decentralized term is wrong cpan can be viewed as centralized, it is a single storage space for all modules i just believe that is too much waste, in having to repackage each application to different systems, there must be a better way, where the effort will be more efficient and require less resources maybe the opposite of what i said is true, maybe we need to centralize over one package system to reduce the effort, or in other, maybe we need we centralized over a single system and repo, to be able to decentralize the effort
- berntb 13y agoI thought most people would have as main reason to not mix their own stuff with the system Perl?! And you want multiple Perls installed, anyway. Backward compatibility is a target in the Perl world, but stay safe... ("This is the versions at the job servers. This is what I do my hobbies with. Also, I need to keep a 5.8.8 Perl, to make certain so X works with that golden oldie.")