Perhaps you should consider the alternative, that it’s the lack of consistent dependencies across target distributions that’s the problem. Some of it is certainly fixable on the development side, but a lot of it is just the complexity of managing a software project that is expected to run in multiple very different environments.
I think the diversity is a strength. It means thing don’t fail the same way, try different new things, and tests things from more angles. Different distro are good. BSD is good for Linux.
Sounds like something not ready for production to me. If it is not maintainable without nailing down it’s dependencies, it’s got a problem. I much prefer the reproducable packages direction. Seams a way more maintainable and open, approach.
Yes, it is awesome, I’m just saying that supporting that is a big ask for a software vendor, so containerizing dependencies is a viable workaround.
I’m always going to see it as second class and avoid that software when ever I can. I see it as symptom of either rotting software or poor developers.
Perhaps you should consider the alternative, that it’s the lack of consistent dependencies across target distributions that’s the problem. Some of it is certainly fixable on the development side, but a lot of it is just the complexity of managing a software project that is expected to run in multiple very different environments.
I think the diversity is a strength. It means thing don’t fail the same way, try different new things, and tests things from more angles. Different distro are good. BSD is good for Linux.
I agree, it just makes packaging that much more difficult, especially for fast moving packages. Hence containerization.
Sounds like something not ready for production to me. If it is not maintainable without nailing down it’s dependencies, it’s got a problem. I much prefer the reproducable packages direction. Seams a way more maintainable and open, approach.