🔜fosdem
You want to ship binaries for linux?
Put that in packages, otherwise you're probably going to have some binary-compatibility horror.
Put that in packages, otherwise you're probably going to have some binary-compatibility horror.
@lanodan how do I package without physical and psychological pain?
@lanodan writing only an ebuild doesn't count.
Most people use Arch, Ubuntu or Fedora. And all of them are just purely bad.
Most people use Arch, Ubuntu or Fedora. And all of them are just purely bad.
@a1ba Guess why I don't use those distros?
If I'm missing a package for anything, it's a nightmare to grab it.
So to me they are failed distros, and I don't see why I should have to bear the pain of other people's choices.
If I'm missing a package for anything, it's a nightmare to grab it.
So to me they are failed distros, and I don't see why I should have to bear the pain of other people's choices.
@MischievousTomato @a1ba Arch is more of a pain because of the absolute instability of the system.
Quite like how with python you need to at least bump your packages every 6 months in most distros.
Quite like how with python you need to at least bump your packages every 6 months in most distros.
i guess. I havent messed with packaging yet. Currently, as just a user who loves the concept of flatpak but still hates how messy it is, arch and its aur work greatly.
@MischievousTomato @a1ba Flatpak is a horrible hack.
Learn static linking if you want to ship blobs that ignore the distro.
Learn static linking if you want to ship blobs that ignore the distro.
@lanodan @MischievousTomato @a1ba Wasn't isolation by using chroot the main point? It ensues bringing all the dependencies in, but that wasn't the primary objective. Am I wrong?
@m0xee @MischievousTomato @a1ba
Flatpak problem is mostly: Yeah, please ship me an entire distro as blob that can't be rebuilt/modified. So in practice, everyone looses the rights guaranteed by FOSS licences.
(Also crappy integration in the host system, meaning broken accessibility)
Flatpak problem is mostly: Yeah, please ship me an entire distro as blob that can't be rebuilt/modified. So in practice, everyone looses the rights guaranteed by FOSS licences.
(Also crappy integration in the host system, meaning broken accessibility)
Follow
@MischievousTomato @a1ba @lanodan Theoretically they could provide links to relevant files or copies, but I don't know how they actually do it.
No guys, I'm not defending this, I've never used flatpaks and I'm not going to. All I'm saying, they didn't make it this shitty by chance — it's this way by design.
@m0xee @a1ba @lanodan you COULD have good integration, and they seem to be aiming to improve stuff, but some stuff is still rough. i think that i could help by reporting the issue of flatpak not reading /etc, but im on arch, flatpak-free, and everything just works
@MischievousTomato Good for you! Same here.
I don't see how sanboxing improves security in the age of Meltdown/Spectre/Heartbleed/etc but some seem to like it.
@MischievousTomato @lanodan @m0xee I believe they will figure it out.
That's why I think flatpak is the future.
But snap is not, it's probably going to die like everything else Canonical tried to push.
Just bringing libraries of some older distro and rebuilding all dependencies against them (is what AppImage devs suggest, like building on RHEL 6 or old stable Debian) is today.
That's why I think flatpak is the future.
But snap is not, it's probably going to die like everything else Canonical tried to push.
Just bringing libraries of some older distro and rebuilding all dependencies against them (is what AppImage devs suggest, like building on RHEL 6 or old stable Debian) is today.
