Timeline for Does packaging an application for APT involve pointing the application to use the APT communal dependencies?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 26, 2016 at 13:33 | history | edited | agc | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Added needed word. |
| Jun 26, 2016 at 4:27 | comment | added | the_velour_fog | I think the new Ubuntu snaps are all about too... | |
| Jun 26, 2016 at 3:53 | comment | added | agc | It's up to the packager, but for a 100% bundled package full of thorny rabbit holes, there's no reason to fix what ain't broke. But yes, Debian repos have included packages that use all sorts of dependencies -- bundled libraries, forked libraries, libraries that conflict with competing packages, and who knows what else... (For a more radical experiment in packaging, there's stuff like the NIX package manager, which bundles virtually everything.) | |
| Jun 26, 2016 at 3:07 | comment | added | the_velour_fog | thanks. so if a monolithic style application bundled and referenced its own dependencies in a namespaced way so it didn't collide with the system version, would the package maintainers typically say ok it works, I won't touch it? which in that case, it would mean that packages in the debian repos would sometimes use their own bundled dependencies and sometimes use the communal system dependencies? | |
| Jun 26, 2016 at 3:02 | vote | accept | the_velour_fog | ||
| Jun 26, 2016 at 2:21 | history | answered | agc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |