• Synthead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Linked dependencies, for one. What if your distro uses uClibc? A different imagemagick version? What about LTS distros? Immutable distros?

    • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      What if who cares?

      When I used to build app packages internally I also built packages for our own python and ruby versions for our in-house software. The motto was: “system packages are for system software”. We weren’t writing system software, we were writing business software and shipping it, so why be dependent on what Redhat or Debian provided?

      Universal packages are just an extension of this philosophy, and is why things like docker and app stores are such a success. Burdening the user with getting system dependencies right is worse than the DLL hell of the old windows days.

    • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Usually people mean flatpak and other desktop-focused formats when talking about universal package formats.

      Even docker images are usually built with traditionial package managers, except if they’re built directly by Nix.

      I agree that there won’t be “the” package format, since they all have their tradeoffs. E.g. Nix updates need quite a bit of memory, so it isn’t a good choice for resource constrained embedded use-cases.