[sdboyer]

Well, spoiler then: I don't advocate for generic package management. That's someone else's problem. Maybe, if the ideas I've put forth in there lay useful foundations, it's something that could happen, but I very much doubt it's practicable.

Even if it does happen, though, I suspect that end-user package management still ends up looking different from developer package management.

[scrollaway]

I agree. I don't think "generic package management" is possible at all. I think it's possible to make it more generic than it is now (namely by having similar domains agree on single package managers), but these issues are far less relevant.

What is possible I think is to have generic package management servers and protocols. The same way you have HTTP servers right now and don't just roll your own domain-specific protocol for your own domain-specific web just because it's in go instead of python or whatever. And yes, you end up with multiple web browsers and that is fine. You even end up with domain-specific browsers (eg. embedded in games, or as a library, or "live apps" and what have you) and that's all fine.

What I see, whenever I see a new package manager, is a colossal waste of time that could have been avoided.