Timeline for Why don't package managers have per-user installations and registries?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2023 at 19:29 | comment | added | Balázs Börcsök | Homebrew is for Linux now, the official page is docs.brew.sh/Homebrew-on-Linux | |
| Dec 28, 2017 at 22:58 | comment | added | jayhendren | Depends. Those that compile from source like Homebrew and Emerge generally just try to build the package without a lot of dependency tracking. Others bundle dependencies with the packages (this is how most App Store style tools work, as well as Flatpak and Snaps). Others like Zero Install install all dependencies as individual user-level packages. | |
| Dec 28, 2017 at 22:12 | comment | added | einpoklum | The system-wide package management assumes nothing is available if it hadn't installed it, so searching for dependencies in terms of files is equivalent to searching for dependencies in terms of installed packages containing those files. But with a secondary package manager, there's the system-wide packages/files and the user-specific packages/files. Do the package managers typically rely only on what they have downloaded and/or built? | |
| Dec 28, 2017 at 22:09 | comment | added | jayhendren | Not sure what you're asking. Could you be more specific? | |
| Dec 28, 2017 at 20:37 | comment | added | einpoklum | Another thing... do these typically build from scratch, bootstrap, or keep relying on whatever's installed at the system-wide level? | |
| Dec 28, 2017 at 20:29 | comment | added | jayhendren | I don't know about dpkg to be quite honest, since I've never built .deb packages. I'd guess dpkg does support dynamic installation directories, but I doubt many .deb package maintainers do. | |
| Dec 28, 2017 at 20:03 | comment | added | einpoklum | So, RPM supports this but, say, dpkg doesn't? | |
| Dec 28, 2017 at 19:21 | history | answered | jayhendren | CC BY-SA 3.0 |