LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   2019 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2019-linuxquestions-org-members-choice-awards-129/)
-   -   Universal Packaging Format of the Year (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2019-linuxquestions-org-members-choice-awards-129/universal-packaging-format-of-the-year-4175666971/)

jeremy 01-02-2020 08:16 PM

Universal Packaging Format of the Year
 
A newer category that had extremely close results in its first 2 years.

--jeremy

ChuangTzu 01-02-2020 08:24 PM

None of the above should have been an option as well as .deb, .rpm, or source etc...

Timothy Miller 01-02-2020 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu (Post 6073708)
None of the above should have been an option as well as .deb, .rpm, or source etc...

Perhaps it would be better to add "Universal" to the title? Universald packaging format of the year? That would preclude .deb & .rpm then.

Source isn't a packaging format per se, since ALL packages are at some point derived from source, and you cannot simply INSTALL from source without compiling first. So it shouldn't be included anyway.

ChuangTzu 01-02-2020 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timothy Miller (Post 6073754)
Perhaps it would be better to add "Universal" to the title? Universald packaging format of the year? That would preclude .deb & .rpm then.

Agreed, or add the other options for a more universal selection. :)

phantom_cyph 01-02-2020 09:17 PM

And here I thought the point of source code was the fact it could be used universally.. lol

(None of above)

Timothy Miller 01-02-2020 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phantom_cyph (Post 6073768)
And here I thought the point of source code was the fact it could be used universally.. lol

(None of above)

yes, it's universal, but it's not a packaging format. You can't just install from it without doing something else first.

jeremy 01-02-2020 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timothy Miller (Post 6073754)
Perhaps it would be better to add "Universal" to the title? Universald packaging format of the year? That would preclude .deb & .rpm then.

That was indeed the intended poll title. Updated. https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post6068152

--jeremy

verndog 01-02-2020 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuangTzu (Post 6073708)
None of the above should have been an option as well as .deb, .rpm, or source etc...

Absolutely! I run debian based, and its only apt that I use. Remove all the other from my system

fatmac 01-03-2020 04:31 AM

Favourite is apt - whilst universal would be tgz/bz2. :D

Apt is 'universal' over all the distros that I use. ;)

pan64 01-03-2020 04:37 AM

Actually I was thinking about a dockerized (or containerized) packaging format, but it is not yet "invented". Probably in the future....

Timothy Miller 01-03-2020 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan64 (Post 6073868)
Actually I was thinking about a dockerized (or containerized) packaging format, but it is not yet "invented". Probably in the future....

To be fair, both Snap and Flatpak AIM to be similar to a containerized (being sandboxed) format, and it can work just fine as such if the people packaging do it correctly (from what I understand) on at least flatpak. I personally dislike snap so not as certain that snap in and of itself is ready for that, but probably is.

YesItsMe 01-03-2020 07:46 AM

The Linux Standard Packaging Format is RPM. :D

... Of those listed here, probably Flatpak, not counting security implications.

ondoho 01-05-2020 05:47 AM

Universal:
Code:

./configure; make; install

Geist 01-05-2020 10:02 AM

Voted for Appimage, because it annoyed me the least of the three.

Mike_Walsh 01-06-2020 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatmac (Post 6073863)
Apt is 'universal' over all the distros that I use. ;)

TBH, 'apt' ain't a 'packaging format. It's a package management format. Slight difference.

.deb or .rpm are not 'universal', either. Those that require .debs won't install .rpms without some form of conversion. And vice-versa. The fact that the actual content of both is identical is neither here nor there.....it's the package-management 'specifics' that set them apart for most folks.

The title, as it stands, is correct, for the choices given. Every one of those three is intended to be a 'universal' format in the sense that you can run them on any OS, regardless of which camp it belongs to.

But Snaps are heavily promoted by Canonical. FlatPak is, I believe, developed more on the Red Hat side of things. So - given that the Sherlock Holmes theory holds water here; after process of elimination, whatever is left over at the very end MUST be the true facts of the case (however 'fantastic') - this really only leaves the AppImage as the one, truly 'universal' packaging format.

Sorry if y'all don't like my logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho (Post 6074823)
Universal:
Code:

./configure; make; install

Mm-hm. Oh, it's 'universal' right enough.....but it still ain't a 'packaging' format, is it? More of a 'play on words', I should have said... :D


Mike. ;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 PM.