4 ms·

I don't get it... What's wrong with apt? I wish everyone just used one package manager.

by lqdc13 11y ago

cbhl 11y ago
Requires root access, has a global lock, have to build a new package for each distro/version because the deps change (even though the binary itself might not need changes), etc.
- lqdc13 11y ago
  I guess those things could be a configuration thing within apt? Basically I can see it being frustrating in the future with only being able to get a version of something through apt and then trying to not install dependencies that you have through another package manager. That's an issue I sometimes have with homebrew and macports on macs plus python pip. Basically, some things you can only get through macports, some things only through homebrew and some things only through pip. Then you have to reorder the imports to not fuck up compiling something for every single thing you are trying to compile from source. And it is extremely annoying because you actually have no idea which imports are causing the issues. Now add to that that different packages may require the dependencies to be compiled in a certain way and you are in a world of pain.
  - cbhl 11y ago
    Code talks. Show us a version of dpkg that doesn't have those problems and maybe someone will adopt it.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jcastro 11y ago
Do an upgrade or install an application on your laptop ... while that is in progress pull the battery out. Package manager breaks. Atomic commits, rollbacks, and the big one, decoupling the OS from the applications. Developers can just publish their apps directly on their own schedule.
- click170 11y ago
  > Developers can just publish their apps directly on their own schedule. As a Debian user I do not see that as a feature, I see that as a risk. One of the biggest reasons I use Debian is because package management is done the way it is, but a lot of people complain because the packages in Debian Stable are out of date. I think the disagreement here isn't on whether the software in Debian Stable is up to date, it's actually about what the definition of stable is. Many people prefer bleeding edge. For me, I prefer Debian's definition of stable, and I don't want the developers of the software being able to push it to my systems on a whim because on rare occasion developers have been known to use their users as their testers, and this is a risk I want to minimize. Regarding your other points, could you expand a bit on decoupling the OS from the applications? Everything else sounds like it could be a feature request against apt, do you have a moment to file them? It sounds like you've got some good ideas.
  - dmix 11y ago
    > Many people prefer bleeding edge. For me, I prefer Debian's definition of stable Having maintained Debian, Fedora, and ArchLinux machines over the past few years, I've found ArchLinux has vastly improved in terms of stability recently while still maintaining close to bleeding edge releases. I don't see it get enough credit for this. This must be the result of having a high quality team of package maintainers who know how to push out new packages properly. Fedora on the other hand also promises bleeding edge - but for years I found it broke far too often, and yum is certainly not helpful in those situations. As a result I no longer see it as a "bleeding edge vs stable" dichotomy. You can have your cake and eat it too if you a) choose your software stack wisely and b) use a distro with a smart team behind it. Switching to the Debian boxes always feels like stepping back 2yrs in a time machine, which has a high cost for a person who likes to keep up with progress in software development.
    - rifung 11y ago
      Hm interesting.. do you ever feel like you are missing out on any programs while on ArchLinux? It seems that when people want to support Linux they often only choose to support Ubuntu/Debian. I'm definitely tempted to give ArchLinux a try now though
click170 11y ago
If someone wants to re-invent the wheel I won't stop them, but I would ask that they explain their motivations for doing so before seriously asking me to use it. That G+ post doesn't really explain why, maybe this is coming in a later post? Edit: To expand a bit, I wish that G+ post had gone into detail (or linked to somewhere that did) about why they felt apt was insufficient and why it had to be abandoned instead of fixed. Other HN users have linked to the Snappy page which contained more details, and have explained some of the problems they've found with apt, I just wish the main story made an effort to do the same.
tanderson92 11y ago
Surely you are not serious. The diversity of Linux package managers has led to some great ideas, with different distributions implementing some things differently. Open source software means everyone is free to scratch their itch, and that is one of the features of OSS many of us hackers like the most. Heck, just yesterday there was this story on HN where a distribution(Exherbo) introduced a whole new way of doing multiarch with some novel approaches (full disclosure I use the distribution): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9508077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9508077 Do you really want to lose this process of continual improvement just by everyone using a single package manager, a single distro? Thinking through this a little more, the diversity in Linux is one of the greatest advantages over proprietary systems.
baldfat 11y ago
I could write a ton about what bothers me with the basic structure of Apt: No defined config area Shared libraries that by the very foundation of them being shared break when one is updated and than the developer has to quickly respond The tie in to the OS. It should be if it is Linux it installs and works. Right now we have a BETTER system than 10 years ago but it is still broken. Better syntax. Apt is the worst syntax ever to me. It isn't important but always makes me mad. apt-get update only refreshes the repos and apt-get upgrade updates and doesn't upgrade the OS or revert to making sure the owner of each package is the official repos. apt-cache search is annoying. it should be apt install apt seach apt refresh apt update.

I don't get it... What's wrong with apt? I wish everyone just used one package manager.

by lqdc13 11y ago

I don't get it... What's wrong with apt? I wish everyone just used one package manager.

cbhl 11y ago

Requires root access, has a global lock, have to build a new package for each distro/version because the deps change (even though the binary itself might not need changes), etc.

lqdc13 11y ago
I guess those things could be a configuration thing within apt? Basically I can see it being frustrating in the future with only being able to get a version of something through apt and then trying to not install dependencies that you have through another package manager. That's an issue I sometimes have with homebrew and macports on macs plus python pip. Basically, some things you can only get through macports, some things only through homebrew and some things only through pip. Then you have to reorder the imports to not fuck up compiling something for every single thing you are trying to compile from source. And it is extremely annoying because you actually have no idea which imports are causing the issues. Now add to that that different packages may require the dependencies to be compiled in a certain way and you are in a world of pain.
- cbhl 11y ago
  Code talks. Show us a version of dpkg that doesn't have those problems and maybe someone will adopt it.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jcastro 11y ago

Do an upgrade or install an application on your laptop ... while that is in progress pull the battery out. Package manager breaks. Atomic commits, rollbacks, and the big one, decoupling the OS from the applications. Developers can just publish their apps directly on their own schedule.

click170 11y ago
> Developers can just publish their apps directly on their own schedule. As a Debian user I do not see that as a feature, I see that as a risk. One of the biggest reasons I use Debian is because package management is done the way it is, but a lot of people complain because the packages in Debian Stable are out of date. I think the disagreement here isn't on whether the software in Debian Stable is up to date, it's actually about what the definition of stable is. Many people prefer bleeding edge. For me, I prefer Debian's definition of stable, and I don't want the developers of the software being able to push it to my systems on a whim because on rare occasion developers have been known to use their users as their testers, and this is a risk I want to minimize. Regarding your other points, could you expand a bit on decoupling the OS from the applications? Everything else sounds like it could be a feature request against apt, do you have a moment to file them? It sounds like you've got some good ideas.
- dmix 11y ago
  > Many people prefer bleeding edge. For me, I prefer Debian's definition of stable Having maintained Debian, Fedora, and ArchLinux machines over the past few years, I've found ArchLinux has vastly improved in terms of stability recently while still maintaining close to bleeding edge releases. I don't see it get enough credit for this. This must be the result of having a high quality team of package maintainers who know how to push out new packages properly. Fedora on the other hand also promises bleeding edge - but for years I found it broke far too often, and yum is certainly not helpful in those situations. As a result I no longer see it as a "bleeding edge vs stable" dichotomy. You can have your cake and eat it too if you a) choose your software stack wisely and b) use a distro with a smart team behind it. Switching to the Debian boxes always feels like stepping back 2yrs in a time machine, which has a high cost for a person who likes to keep up with progress in software development.
  - rifung 11y ago
    Hm interesting.. do you ever feel like you are missing out on any programs while on ArchLinux? It seems that when people want to support Linux they often only choose to support Ubuntu/Debian. I'm definitely tempted to give ArchLinux a try now though

click170 11y ago

If someone wants to re-invent the wheel I won't stop them, but I would ask that they explain their motivations for doing so before seriously asking me to use it. That G+ post doesn't really explain why, maybe this is coming in a later post? Edit: To expand a bit, I wish that G+ post had gone into detail (or linked to somewhere that did) about why they felt apt was insufficient and why it had to be abandoned instead of fixed. Other HN users have linked to the Snappy page which contained more details, and have explained some of the problems they've found with apt, I just wish the main story made an effort to do the same.

tanderson92 11y ago

Surely you are not serious. The diversity of Linux package managers has led to some great ideas, with different distributions implementing some things differently. Open source software means everyone is free to scratch their itch, and that is one of the features of OSS many of us hackers like the most. Heck, just yesterday there was this story on HN where a distribution(Exherbo) introduced a whole new way of doing multiarch with some novel approaches (full disclosure I use the distribution): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9508077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9508077 Do you really want to lose this process of continual improvement just by everyone using a single package manager, a single distro? Thinking through this a little more, the diversity in Linux is one of the greatest advantages over proprietary systems.

baldfat 11y ago

I could write a ton about what bothers me with the basic structure of Apt: No defined config area Shared libraries that by the very foundation of them being shared break when one is updated and than the developer has to quickly respond The tie in to the OS. It should be if it is Linux it installs and works. Right now we have a BETTER system than 10 years ago but it is still broken. Better syntax. Apt is the worst syntax ever to me. It isn't important but always makes me mad. apt-get update only refreshes the repos and apt-get upgrade updates and doesn't upgrade the OS or revert to making sure the owner of each package is the official repos. apt-cache search is annoying. it should be apt install apt seach apt refresh apt update.