Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Packaging Modern Linux Apps Is Incredibly Difficult" video.

  1. So every app distributed as an AppImage? Nah, too much bloat that way. I love AppImages, but regular system packages are still the best way as long as the maintainer is on the ball.
    1
  2. I'll just put my idea here in the hopes that someone who's willing to do the work implements it, but we should have a minimal infrastructure target definition for Linux. Think of something like XDG incorporating a definition for a base LFS. Have a standard for naming packages and a central repository to register them then everything else, dependency or whatnot would be capable of running on top of that with the gaps filled in either statically, in cases like OBS and ffmpeg, or dynamically if it's a dependency done as stock. I know it'll never happen of course because if I'm not willing to implement it then it just won't get done, but I'm busy with other projects and ultimately too lazy anyhow.
    1
  3. Totally agreed.
    1
  4. My root drive has 33gb used and that's for nearly every app I've installed, but that's traditional package management, mostly, and a very tiny amount of AppImages. Now, why do I say nearly? Because I've got some non-traditional package management as well, rust currently takes up 17gb, which is after wiping its entire folder and installing from scratch because it was up to 30gb last time around. And I've got a lot of source folders for software I've built myself, and for the most part generated a system package with dynamic linking and installed using the system package manager. I can't actually use FlatPak's on my system because I couldn't get it to build and haven't cared enough to try a second time. I'm not entirely sure how much space is actually eaten up by all the programs I use because they're all over the place, Games sorted into a separate directory, nearly everything else is in Downloads, but I've also got a lot of .iso's and random junk in there too. Just du'd it and 201gb in my Downloads folder with only 2.1gb of that in gcc. Though, this is a fresh clone because when fully built it was around 9gb.
    1
  5.  @billeterk  Yeah, for permissions. And since it was used for speed purposes in executables it's not really relevant here either. Consider using an SBC where you only have 4gb of RAM. With a vast quantity of non-shared libraries you may need more RAM than the system has installed and have no way of installing more. Shared libraries would reduce that overhead.
    1
  6. At this point I'm inclined to think that all the typos are intentional.
    1