The race for a universal package manager
Package Deal
We look at four contenders that want to become the Linux universal package manager, although the reality is still on the horizon.
So far, 2016 is likely to be remembered as the year in which universal package managers were debated. With the announcement of Ubuntu's Snappy packages, followed quickly by Fedora's and Red Hat's release of its Flatpak format, the race is on for a method of software installation that will work on any distribution and make .deb, .rpm, and the rest footnotes in Linux history.
Advocates of a universal package manager claim that it will make software installation more efficient by eliminating dependency problems. Additionally, many candidates include extra security and extra features, such as package installation by ordinary users for their own use. However, whether any improvements will result is questionable. Debian developers in particular insist the way to eliminate software installation problems lies in enforcing a strict package structure, as described in the Debian Policy Manual [1].
In fact, Josh Triplett, a long-time Debian contributor, went so far as to suggest that Debian's reputation is a consequence of the Debian Policy, and not the .deb format. According to Triplett, "Debian without the .deb format would still be Debian; Debian without [the] Debian Policy would just be Sourceforge or Rpmfind," and nothing more than a random collection of software [2].
[...]
Buy this article as PDF
(incl. VAT)
Buy Linux Magazine
US / Canada
UK / Australia