@alxlg @vwbusguy @eugenialoli
Containers & bring-your-own-dependencies may have some use cases, but that should not be for normal Linux apps. One containerized program I used last year required a full 4GB, as it only ran on Ubuntu.
So yes, I'm talking about making native packaging easier for devs. I'm also looking for a healthy collaborative culture where code is updated as needed rather just punting and allowing old code to rot in an isolated container.
IMO application developers and distro maintainers should be working more closely on packaging. A number of times I've had to poke Fedora to update packages which were years out of date. Upstream had fixed serious issues, but there seems to be no communication with maintainers.
Having a single package specification to be used on distro-specific services like Copr could help developers to do their own packaging.
@alxlg
FOSS is a software commons. The idea of a "third-party" is a business thing. Linux distros have been providing major applications in the OS repository which share common libraries and this has been a boon for users.
Flatpak, I suspect, is being put forward by RedHat to make it easier for corporate vendors to support Linux. Big business doesn't care how much storage & RAM is wasted - "Just deploy my app now!"
@alxlg
Yes, it's an extra step that I want nothing to do with as either a user or application developer. I fear that it will be used as a native package replacement for more programs over time.
@eugenialoli #Flatpak is a dismal solution to the distro. fragmentation problem. Installing the flatpak of #SolveSpace brings in over 250MB of dependencies on my #Fedora system while an RPM version only requires 6MB.
Distros refused a common package format, but at least they could have had the decency to accept a common package specification for developers to use. Something like .spec and debbuild would be nice.
