|
|
|
|
|
|
by kybernetikos
1303 days ago
|
|
|
> devs either properly package their apps, or don't release them at all. There's still no widely accepted answer for what 'properly package their apps' looks like. You could want snaps or appimages or a flatpak, or rpms or debs or docker containers or nix flakes or cargo crates or python virtual environments or jars or javawebstarts or portable windows executables or windows msis or webasm packages or web pages ... there's an impossible profusion that it's currently unreasonable to expect devs (many of whom are working for free) to support more than a couple of. If there were a single solution that worked in almost all cases and platforms, didn't put unreasonable constraints on packagers and was widely adopted, then it might be somewhat reasonable to expect devs to support it, but that's far from the world we live in. The closest to that (despite its real problems) is probably piping a curl to a bash script... |
|
|
Any single one of them is better than curl|sh. Just pick one. Even shipping raw runnable binary blob is preferred.
But to classify, as long as it is a unit managed by a system that can be wholly removed (sans data/configs, as you might want to keep those), it works well enough as "package">
> there's an impossible profusion that it's currently unreasonable to expect devs (many of whom are working for free) to support more than a couple of.
...I don't think I ever saw anyone asking to support more than one for a platform. Obviously users on MacOS (assuming app even releases there) will complain if you only have .deb packages but you won't get many "oh, only .deb ? I wanted a flatpack!"