Am 08.07.22 um 12:54 schrieb Dan Čermák:
Manfred Schwarb
writes: So to be frankly honest here: both approaches have their downsides and upsides. We still will ship rpm content, but it will probably be limited to the parts of the system where dependencies don't have to be pinned. And the parts which are getting increasingly complex and where even unbundling all dependencies is a non-trivial effort, will be shipped as flatpaks or maybe not at all… I will probably get a lot of hate for this, but we have to always ask ourselves, whether packaging something really provides any value to our users.
Ha! And how to tell? As far as I know, there are no usage nor download statistics, at all. How can I judge the value of a package? It could be that a lot of packages in TW are only used by the maintainer itself, if at all...
That is not what I meant. By value I meant what value does packaging it provide. E.g. if I just shove a precompiled binary into an rpm, then imho the value-add of that is next to none. On the other hand if I recompile everything from pristine sources, audit them and can build the program reproducibly, then I am adding a lot of value.
Yes, 20 years ago I was thinking the same. I had quite some trivial programs which I compiled from source (sometimes the most trivial variant: "gcc prog.c -o prog") or precompiled java packages downloaded from the web. But I figured with all the distribution upgrades and deployment to different boxes, it is actually simpler and less error-prone to write a simple spec file and place it to OBS than to deal with things manually. But I agree, a container would be overkill, probably... Cheers, Manfred