Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Stop Making This Simple Linux Packaging Mistake" video.

  1. Kind of sounds like an annoying limitation of the package manager and whole system. As a long time user of Slackware, I've often felt that the lackluster package management was holding me back when acquiring new software, but I keep seeing problems with other package managers and I'm inclined to think that they all kind of suck in their own way. It's just a matter of which quirks you're willing to put up with. Don't get me wrong, it's still leaps and bounds better than anything Windows offers, and I've been way more happy with Linux. It's just that after 30 years of development, I want better and we should probably all expect better.
    2
  2. Maybe this will sound stupid, but I think the obvious solution is to never use simple names when generating binaries for libraries. Obviously this isn't something the end user could fix without compiling everything from source and patching all of the poorly written code that uses hard coded paths to simple name libraries. However, it's something that should be done in the future. So many programs I use have configure scripts and it could be fixed that way, but that's not how they set it up most of the time. In fact they'll often have the configure script link to the simple name instead of the versioned one. Alternatively, if every program had all of its dependencies put into a container with it, like some sort of AppImage or FlatPak, that could solve a lot of issues too, even if you ran out of space.
    1