|
|
|
|
|
|
by mustache_kimono
1303 days ago
|
|
|
> I practice what I'm preaching, and I really don't buy that it's a lot of effort. If you want users, do it. I've heard a lot about these systems, and, if they do what they promise, I think this is great. Exactly what is needed. I already do package and distribute my software. My comments are mostly directed at those who have a problem with those who don't, because that's a fine choice too. It can also be a fine choice for awhile. The problem is mostly one of attitude, we need less user entitlement re: packages. Packages are something I will get to if I want to, when I have the time, and if it interests me. I would note there are other problems with the package manager ecosystem which make it ill-suited to packaging Rust apps, for instance. I am not an Arch user, but Arch really is leading the way here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Rust_package_guidelines |
|
|
I don't want to seem unappreciative for the work developers like yourself and others do; packages or not.
I'm not a developer, but a Linux/systems person who happened to learn packaging. Mostly because I got tired of building from source, and figured others were too.
As a maintainer it is easy for me (and others) to trivialize this, as compared to actually writing the much more complicated software. It's not right, and I think we could all use more understanding.
I see a meme that 'packaging is hard', and while very rigid/plain, it's not actually that tough.
Priority is another matter, I just don't want this notion of difficulty to unfairly sway that priority. Many of the concepts reapply, like languages. The tooling/services have improved a lot
I'm not too familiar with Rust, unfortunately. What would you say makes Arch stand out in particular?
How do you feel about Fedora? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ru...