Ray Hughes wrote:
I wonder, does anyone know what Linus thinks of Snaps
if he thinks of them at all.
Ha. LT is unhappy w/ 'everything' (related to packaging) which of
course includes snaps. He's sorta source oriented. (last link)
At the risk of my getting beat up again for having an opinion and being
a 'narcist', my preferred packing is a .deb for the version of Ub repo/s
I use for my Mint everyday driver.
*BUT* I acknowledge that the .deb packaging is a major 'breach' of the
ideas of unifying packaging around 'one' type of package, and the
'expectation' that dev/s should 'have to' satisfy all of the 'myriad'
different packaging schemes is 'terrible'.
And, I think Snaps are one of the *worst* solutions. I think it would
be 'nice' if there were some kind of middle ground that made it simple
to be able to use such as a flatpak or appimage instead of having to go
'all the way back' to source, so that it would be easier than compiling
from source to 'derive' a 'fatter' package into a .deb or .rpm or whichever.
<Deb hx>
The earliest packaging tool, written by Ian Murdock and called dpkg, created a package in a Debian-specific binary format, and could be used later to unpack and install the files in the package.
At about this time some debate arose between members of the project -- some felt that the Debian-specific format created by dpkg-deb should be dropped in favor of the format produced by the ar program. After several revised file formats and
correspondingly-revised packaging tools, the ar format was adopted
https://docs.huihoo.com/debian/manuals/project-history/ch-detailed.en.html
https://thenewstack.io/canonicals-snap-great-good-bad-ugly/ Canonical’s
Snap: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
--
Mike Easter
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)