Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think you might be underestimating how different package management is between Debian, Arch, and Fedora. This also ignores the many other differences.

Debian stable will have packages that feel very out of date. Debian unstable (sid) makes no guarantees that an update won't introduce breaking changes.

Fedora Linux has six month major releases, so the packages feel fresher than Debian stable, but are much more stable than Debian unstable. The six month major release vs a rolling release means twice a year you'll have to watch an update carefully.

The barrier of entry for releasing an AUR package is incompatible with my standards of system security, so I refuse to use them. The official repositories feel a little bare in comparison to Fedora and Debian because they have an expectation that AUR will fill in any gaps.



> I think you might be underestimating how different package management is between Debian, Arch, and Fedora

Doesn't that make all of the efforts spent maintaining separate package managers even worse? It's bikeshedding/hairsplitting at some point, no?

I'm talking about developing + maintaining yum/apt/pacman

Let alone what it takes to maintain 20,000+ (or however many the real number is) packages shipped slightly differently for each repo




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: