2016-06-16 8:49 GMT+02:00 Bo Simonsen <bo@geekworld.dk>:
On 2016-06-16 07:54, Michal Kubecek wrote:
For our win and mac builds, we build and ship exactly one Qt version, built with our patch set. I hate to say it, but it is way harder for us to properly support Linux than Mac or Windows, for the described reasons. It wouldn't be even possible if we hadn't OBS, so thanks for that.
That hopefully illustrates why the idea of snappy appears overly useful from that POV. A lot of 3rdparty vendors do other dirty tricks such as static linking etc.
As far as I'm concerned, this reasoning rather illustrates what exactly is utterly and terribly _wrong_ with the concept of snap.
What is the better solution then?
I do not see anything else, than tarballs with static-linked executables in the world of Linux with different package managers, versions of software, etc.
I like the idea of a hybrid solution - the rpm and deb based base system and snap on the top for bigger packages with difficult dependencies. I understand the argument of software vendors to have an universal package format. They cannot rely on having a maintainer for each distribution. From my point of view this is a big barrier for them to deploy to Linux. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org