On 16/10/13 13:57, Matthew Miller wrote:
We have a mantra of "upstream! upstream! upstream!" for software development and patches. In the olden days, we didn't do that for packaging, because there was no consistent upstream packaging at all (just the occasional upstream shipping terrible distro-targetted packages, or else some weird custom installer). But now, there are important and well-used packaging systems at an upstream ecosystem level, and we're fighting that rather than adapting -- to our own detriment.
There have been "important and well-used packaging systems" at an upstream ecosystem level for a long time - how long has CPAN been around exactly?
That hasn't stopped us saying that they don't provide a good experience to Fedora users however, and that it is better to repackage things as RPMs so that our users only have to deal with a single interface to installing and updating packages and that they will get a set of packages customised (where necessary) to all work nicely together.
Basically your argument seems to be that we can't keep up, so in order to match the ruby and node people at their own game we should reduce our package management to their level. It's basically just admitting defeat in the quest to produce something better.
I made the decision some years ago to stop using CPAN and only use perl modules via rpm and yum and it's made my life a whole let better and I have absolutely no desire.
I do currently use gem to manage ruby stuff I will admit, mostly because I'm more actively developing in that area so I have more need to keep close to the bleeding edge. Plus it's not as much of a pain to use as CPAN. So far I've mostly managed to stick with rpm and yum for node stuff.
Tom -- Tom Hughes (tom@xxxxxxxxxx) http://compton.nu/ -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
