[qwerty456127]

Can't we still have traditional repositories though? I personally dislike snaps and flatpaks because they usually are shipped with libarries hard-baked in rather than using separately-updatable libraries in the OS, using them also often means app duplication on per-user level and at least Snap didn't support Guest sessions (because of non-standard home directory path) the last time I checked.

[lmm]

If you don't want to use something like snap/flatpak then all the distributions using your PPA repository have to provide the same libraries packaged the same way, and at that point what are they going to even gain from being different distributions in the first place? If someone wanted to make a fork of Ubuntu but all the packages and contents are exactly the same as mainline Ubuntu then they'd just use Ubuntu.

[oneshtein]

Provide source packages. It works for hundred thousand of packages, so why your package is an exception?

[lmm]

It evidently isn't working well enough - why are snap and flatpak a thing at all if source packages are good enough? Why do users want programs to get picked up as part of a distro's repositories?

[oneshtein]

As user, I want application to be tested and integrated with my distro by a competent maintainer. As application developer, I want to deliver latest version of my application to all users without additional testing, integration, and discussions with maintainers of all Linux distributions.

[lmm]

> As user, I want application to be tested and integrated with my distro by a competent maintainer.

Do you though? Most users just want the latest upstream release, packaged up so they don't have to deal with compiling or dependency management themselves (and have a chance of a clean uninstall), not any extra testing or integration. Hence the popularity of PPAs, Snap/FlatPak, etc..

[oneshtein]

Most users just want the properly working latest upstream release, which just works from the first try. It means that somebody must properly recompile, test, fix bugs, integrate, and package the software package into existing distribution. Fedora often publishes even pre-release versions of some software packages, if you want to talk about "latest" version.

[qwerty456127]

That's Okay. What I meant was just reorganizing an OS and its nonessential apps repository/ies into 2 (or more) separate projects, not making a repository compatible with every distro out there.

[CorrectHorseBat]

How would that solve the issue of keeping repositories in a both well-tested and up-to-date state? It seems to me it would only make the problem worse because we'd have different, possibly incompatible or unmaintained PPAs

[qwerty456127]

It would just let the OS engineers concentrate on the OS. Potentially making better OSes, maybe also more OSes to choose from, these being actually diverse with original ideas rather than making different app/version choices their key differences. "Just don't do what you can't really do well with reasonable ease, better just do the job which actually is yours".

[CorrectHorseBat]

An OS with missing and/or broken packages is not a better OS.

The OS engineers are usually not the ones maintaining Wesnoth, and if they are it's because they want to.

[lmm]

The point of an OS is to facilitate the applications; there's an old law of project management that improvement happens mainly at the interfaces. The idea of making an OS that will run the same applications with the same interfaces but somehow be better is fundamentally incoherent.

[jcastro]

> using separately-updatable libraries in the OS

There are separately updatable shared libraries via runtimes, they're just not managed by the OS (on purpose).