Untz: Results of the App Installer meeting, and some thoughts on cross-distro collaboration
Untz: Results of the App Installer meeting, and some thoughts on cross-distro collaboration
Posted Jan 26, 2011 14:34 UTC (Wed) by mjthayer (guest, #39183)In reply to: Untz: Results of the App Installer meeting, and some thoughts on cross-distro collaboration by dgm
Parent article: Untz: Results of the App Installer meeting, and some thoughts on cross-distro collaboration
This is just my answer, not an answer from a wise person who has thought much about the matter. Mainly, I would say, because it reduces complexity. A FLOSS-style binary distribution requires masses of testing to ensure that every component works well with every other. Using bundles with reduced dependencies reduces the testing burden on the maintainer, even before you worry about cross-distribution installation.
Then there is the traditional argument that bundling dependencies frees you from worrying what is or is not available on the user's distribution. You just bundle it yourself, test your package and are happy.
Plus my personal feeling is that the package database on a FLOSS system is always a potential place for things to go wrong. Thankfully I think this has only hit me once (or maybe twice), but if it does get corrupt you are in for a massive fixing (or re-installing) session that would be much less painful on a system mainly using bundles. And from a cleanliness point of view, it is much easier to have an overview of what a system mainly based on bundles has on it. I must admit that that last point is what I find most attractive about bundles - they give you much more of a feeling of being in control of your system while (by) structuring (if not reducing) its overall complexity.
Posted Jan 27, 2011 2:17 UTC (Thu)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link]
Bundles are either massive duplication (and innumerable opportunities for security (and other) bugs that get never fixed) or require something like the current dependency handling system, but on weapons-grade steroids (you'd have to track not only one set of dependencies, but potentially dependencies for each single package in the system separately). I just don't see anything but downsides. Yes, the package database is a single point of failure for a Linux distribution. Yes, in the 15 or so years of Red Hat (and derivatives) use I did have my half dozen problems with broken RPM databases, but AFAIR just once there was no reasonable way to fix it without a full reinstall (and that was due to a disk problem, that thrashed the system regardless). Sure, fixing the database wasn't trivial; but the technology used has gotten way better over time, the last thrashed RPM database was quite some time back.
Untz: Results of the App Installer meeting, and some thoughts on cross-distro collaboration