Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
Even if everyone agreed on Apt as the standard package format, wouldn’t you still need to create multiple packages for the various different versions of libraries each distro will still have depending on their release cycle? As far as I know, it can be done theoretically, but since libraries can often break ABI, it’s safer to bundle all dependencies, but then you’re not far off from an appimage in practice.
Flatpak shares libraries, so there are no duplicates of the same version, though there may be duplicates of other versions, as that would ensure compatibility with the specific app.
App image does not share libraries between apps, so it would potentially have more duplicates.
Even if everyone agreed on Apt as the standard package format, wouldn’t you still need to create multiple packages for the various different versions of libraries each distro will still have depending on their release cycle? As far as I know, it can be done theoretically, but since libraries can often break ABI, it’s safer to bundle all dependencies, but then you’re not far off from an appimage in practice.
Also, what are your thoughts on Richard Brown’s (of opensuse) talk on Flatpak, who was a prominent hater of containerized apps.
if it’s not in my distro or I can’t compile it withing my distro’s packages, I’m not installing it. I don’t want the same library in ten versions.
Flatpak shares libraries, so there are no duplicates of the same version, though there may be duplicates of other versions, as that would ensure compatibility with the specific app.
App image does not share libraries between apps, so it would potentially have more duplicates.
yeah, that’s what I meant, multiple versions of the same thing, which always turn out to be 200-500MB packages like chromium/electron.