Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Why Is The Arch User Repository Only For Arch Linux?" video.

This might sound crazy, but I hope all of these conflicts lead us closer to a single repository for every distro with one package format, regardless of the actual program used, some sort of open de facto standard for packages.
30
@eyssewieringa2084 You literally could. Just label packages as stable and unstable. You could set your system to default to stable, which would be sensible, then request unstable when there's something new you want to try. Wouldn't be a bad idea to install them to different locations too.
4
@eyssewieringa2084 I don't think you understand how I meant it, but the point is to lead everyone down a path where all dependencies converge. The only other way to improve Linux as a whole would be to wipe away everything and start from scratch, and we all know that won't happen. This would be an incremental change. Even if a given distribution had to have every single package mirrored in that way, sharing space and a packaging format would lead them towards ironing out the inconsistencies.
3
@cheebadigga4092 Then why not use .tar.* and just have a file named .metadata in the archive?
2
@eyssewieringa2084 You literally could. Do you know how you satisfy a dependency that you need? You provide it. It'd be a lot of work, for sure, but different versions, different distros, it's literally just add a tag to the archive name and list it as a dependency for a package. It would require cooperation amongst the distros to share a repository, but most already maintain repositories anyway. Instead of 50 different repositories, when they find that they're compatible, and most already are for the most part, they could just use the same exact build. Everyone could pay collectively and use the same central repository and just log in to maintain unique packages. Eventually they might even converge on a way of doing things that allowed more sharing of packages.
2
Interesting thought, but why .rpm's instead of .deb's? They're both basically just archive formats, though since .deb's are just `ar` archives they're arguably simpler to use.
1
ROFLCOPTER Doesn't work for me, won't even compile.
1
ROFLCOPTER Slackware.
1
@MOOBBreezy You can if you target a specific base install. Could set up something with LFS, select a bunch of packages to make up a base install that's nearly universal, then target that. Any dependencies not met by that could be built up and fill in the gaps. For dependencies that require molding to a specific distro, you could merely label them for that distro. It would require good management, but it could be done. Not every distro will be so different that you won't be able to target the majority, and it would suck needing someone to maintain 20 packages for one app, but if each distro worked on integration with such a system they might eventually come around to doing things the same way and converging packages.
1
@eyssewieringa2084 I think the real benefit would be collaboration between the distro maintainers. Eventually we might not even have separate distros and instead just have separate default configurations. Though, I'm sure some would dislike such a change, it would improve Linux overall if it went that path.
1
@afroceltduck Sadly, thus is human nature, and why we can't have nice things.
1