[pjmlp]

Because a language-specific package management work in all OSes supported by the language, while OS specific packages work in a single distribution, or not all in OSes that don't offer such support.

So instead of creating M packages * N OSes, we do it just once.

[Merovius]

> So instead of creating M packages * N OSes, we do it just once.

No, creating M packages x N OSes is exactly what we do. In fact, we create M+N package-managers x N OSes - and then also create MxN packages.

If you can write a language-specific package manager for all OSes, you can also write a non-language-specific package manager for all OSes, so I the "it doesn't work in all distributions" argument is just a symptom of my complaint. Instead of working towards a cooperative packaging solution where the effort of packaging can be re-used, we continue to create more and more special snowflakes and fragmentation.

[pjmlp]

Good luck creating a package format that works across iOS, Android, Red-Hat, SuSE, Debian, Ubuntu, ..., IBM i, IBM z, Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, Windows, Zephyr, Yoctos, RTOS, Integrity, mbed, MicroEJ, BSD variants, Unisys ClearPath, VxWorks, QNX, macOS, Tizen, Jolla, ChromeOS, Fuchsia and several others that I am unaware of or was too lazy to keep adding entries for.

My C++, Java and .NET packages work everywhere there is a toolchain available.

[Merovius]

> Good luck creating a package format that works across iOS, Android, Red-Hat, SuSE, Debian, Ubuntu, ..., IBM i, IBM z, Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, Windows, Zephyr, Yoctos, RTOS, Integrity, mbed, MicroEJ, BSD variants, Unisys ClearPath, VxWorks, QNX, macOS, Tizen, Jolla, ChromeOS, Fuchsia and several others that I am unaware of or was too lazy to keep adding entries for.

Can you explain why that would be a problem? It's certainly not a technical one, none of these are special when it comes to versioning or dependency management of software. I can see that there's a social/political problem - which is exactly what I'm talking about.

[pjmlp]

It surely is a technical one above any political willingness.

A package format that supports all OS system paths, installation processes, difference between build time/dev time/deployment time, language compilation toolchains, compiler flags, ways to address hardware resources,OS specific deployment processes, ... is bound to the lowest common denominator for any chance of success.

Thus forcing everyone that needs something beyond that lowest common denominator to implement their own workarounds, thus we are again back to language package managers.

[Merovius]

> is bound to the lowest common denominator for any chance of success.

ISTM the "lowest common denominator" is a superset of everything current language-specific package-managers support and a subset of anything a current language-agnostic package-manager supports (pretty much definitionally). So ISTM that this is a net win - easier to build than APT/DNF/Pacman… and yet more useful than npm/stack/pip/…

In particular, I don't know any currently existing language-specific package-manager that supports what I'd call the GCD of package-management (e.g. none that I can think of supports actual OS-specific installation of packages) so that clearly isn't even a requirement.

> Thus forcing everyone that needs something beyond that lowest common denominator to implement their own workarounds, thus we are again back to language package managers.

FWIW, a) part of the political and social problem is to talk more honestly about what "needing" really means and b) no, that's not at all "back to language package managers". You can have a layered design, e.g. splitting the "building" and the "installation" part, thus letting languages implement their workarounds in their dedicated building layer and letting OSes implement their workarounds in their installation layers. You just need to actually sit down and talk about the interface needed between the two (and the sets of layers actually needed, which will be >2). Which no one seems really willing to do.