I’m talking about things like “python3-blabla” and “libsomething”. How bad would it be if nobody used these library-packages and everyone just added all kinds of libraries as part of an application’s package?

  • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    As a mid-power user I almost exclusively use them just because I want my software up to date. for example using discover I can update all my godot installs on all my devices to the latest features I’m seeing everyone rave about. (this is mainly for the maintainers but it trickles down)

    Looking back into when I first was dipping my toes in linux though things like missing libraries and other scary looking apt errors essentially meant I didn’t go further from there and accepted not installing the package. I could see this frustrating lots of users early and causing them to return to windows as I did for a bit.

    edit to add on: I still consider it very important to have the option to install it through a deb let’s say, but more alike how one can compile from source with a thousand flags if they choose - just as long as its a choice

      • carly™@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        In my experience Arch is pretty unstable, though. I’ve never had an Arch installation that didnt break by the end of the month. Flatpaks allow me to use a stable base like Debian while having certain programs more up to date.

        • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly this is why I haven’t made the switch yet.

          Its like letting a package be managed per package instead of per distro, giving its devs some more fine grain control on stability vs update speed