> language package management systems try to solve solve the problem that has been solved by Linux distributions a long time ago, and they typically do it very poorly.
Yet, every main Linux distribution has its own packaging format (deb, rpm, etc) , package naming convention, dependency resolver, package release strategy (rolling, fixed, etc) , package build & deployment system (source, binary, per arch binary, etc), and package install peculiarities (custom, upstream focused, system wide, in a chroot, in a snap, etc), reproducibility constraints, etc...
So it's not like it's a _solved_ problem for Linux distributions.
Not to mention that most distribution package managers are system wide, while language package managers are often environment based.
> > language package management systems try to solve solve the problem that has been solved by Linux distributions a long time ago, and they typically do it very poorly.
> Yet, every main Linux distribution has its own packaging format (deb, rpm, etc) , package naming convention, dependency resolver, package release strategy (rolling, fixed, etc) , package build & deployment system (source, binary, per arch binary, etc), and package install peculiarities (custom, upstream focused, system wide, in a chroot, in a snap, etc), reproducibility constraints, etc...
> So it's not like it's a _solved_ problem for Linux distributions.
Just because someone reinvents the wheel does not mean it wasn't invented (solved before hand. I would also argue each distro package manager is miles ahead of any language one.
> Not to mention that most distribution package managers are system wide, while language package managers are often environment based.
That's the thing I was alluding to in the second part of my post, if developers would be more careful about backwards compatibility we wouldn't have to use environments. I do admit that packages for apps are more of an issue, it would be nice to upgrade those without having to upgrade the rest of the system.
Yet, every main Linux distribution has its own packaging format (deb, rpm, etc) , package naming convention, dependency resolver, package release strategy (rolling, fixed, etc) , package build & deployment system (source, binary, per arch binary, etc), and package install peculiarities (custom, upstream focused, system wide, in a chroot, in a snap, etc), reproducibility constraints, etc...
So it's not like it's a _solved_ problem for Linux distributions.
Not to mention that most distribution package managers are system wide, while language package managers are often environment based.