undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmustache_kimono3y ago0 comments

> I practice what I'm preaching, and I really don't buy that it's a lot of effort. If you want users, do it.

I've heard a lot about these systems, and, if they do what they promise, I think this is great. Exactly what is needed. I already do package and distribute my software. My comments are mostly directed at those who have a problem with those who don't, because that's a fine choice too. It can also be a fine choice for awhile. The problem is mostly one of attitude, we need less user entitlement re: packages. Packages are something I will get to if I want to, when I have the time, and if it interests me.

I would note there are other problems with the package manager ecosystem which make it ill-suited to packaging Rust apps, for instance. I am not an Arch user, but Arch really is leading the way here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Rust_package_guidelines

0 comments

bravetraveler3y ago

Thank you for the packages you do maintain!

I don't want to seem unappreciative for the work developers like yourself and others do; packages or not.

I'm not a developer, but a Linux/systems person who happened to learn packaging. Mostly because I got tired of building from source, and figured others were too.

As a maintainer it is easy for me (and others) to trivialize this, as compared to actually writing the much more complicated software. It's not right, and I think we could all use more understanding.

I see a meme that 'packaging is hard', and while very rigid/plain, it's not actually that tough.

Priority is another matter, I just don't want this notion of difficulty to unfairly sway that priority. Many of the concepts reapply, like languages. The tooling/services have improved a lot

I'm not too familiar with Rust, unfortunately. What would you say makes Arch stand out in particular?

How do you feel about Fedora? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ru...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse