On Monday, 01-07-2024 at 18:37 Richard wrote:
> This has nothing to do with maturity.
Thanks for picking that point up. I was not sure how to explain my reasoning. I
will try to give a better explanation.
As a general rule I am willing to accept RPMs, pacman ?? packages, and .debs,
when they are from the Distribution's own package libraries, or hardware vendor
supported, as otherwise I don't know the people providing the package. I have
this strange belief that when a developer supplies a package to the
Distribution owner for inclusion in their libraries, the Distribution owner
does some level of verification/validation that the package plays nicely with
the distribution and other applications. Maybe even some security checking?
I wonder if anyone agrees with me, or not?
> Only with the existence of someone
> willing to maintain it - and its dependencies if needed. They don't publish
> it as anything else than a Flatpak as that's by far the easiest way to make
> sure it works for everyone, and thus they don't officially support any
> other packaging frameworks. And since they don't just support Wine but also
> Proton, and games benefit a lot from the latest drivers and libraries, so
> packaging it for more conservative distros would entirely defeat at least
> half of its purpose. And I guess Flatpaks isolation from the rest of the
> system can be helpful in other ways too.
There seems to be way too many methods of packaging these days.
I also think there are way too many distributions of Linux too, but if people
have the time, I should not rail against them. I prefer to stay with as close
to the original source distribution as possible, though I have yet to apply
this to compiling from Gentoo Linux.
At one time in my IT career I was involved with package management and
installation of software in a corporate environment and still suffer some level
of PTSD over a few applications that were problematic. There are times when I
definitely would have to agree with you "I guess Flatpaks isolation from the
rest of the system can be helpful in other ways too", both in terms of security
and stability.
>
> So either learn to accept other packaging formats or learn to live with the
> fact that you may miss out on a lot if you don't invest a lot of time
> figuring out how to compile the software by hand.
You are correct, my choice does cause me to live without software that does not
supported in Debian's package library. Though I do make a few exceptions.
I base my decision on a strange notion that Debian packaged software gives a
better level of Security, which is likely misguided, but that has been my
choice so far.
I reserve the right to change my decision whenever it suites me, as I am about
to try WineHQ's version of Wine. ; )
Thanks for your reply and for making me explain my current reasoning in a
(hopefully) better way.
George.
>
> Am Mo., 1. Juli 2024 um 06:13 Uhr schrieb George at Clug <
> c...@goproject.info>:
>
> > Mostly I only install software that is available in the Debian or Arch
> > repositories, and I cannot find Bottles in the Debian Repository. I do not
> > use snaps or flatpacks. Maybe I should but I don't.
> > Hopefully one day, Bottles will mature to the point it can go through the
> > Debian packaging system. I appreciate Debian's packaging systems.
> >
>
