On Monday 11 July 2016 18:57:38 pelzflorian wrote:
On 07/11/2016 05:01 PM, Maxwell Anselm via arch-general wrote:
I think the tool is great Florian, but I do not think that it warrants official support. Consider examples like pacgem or pip2pkgbuild. These tools help integrate Ruby/Python packages (which are usually managed via a separate package manager) into pacman. They are great for users who want pacman to be the single package manager for their entire system, but they are still just AUR packages without official support.
I agree. This is a reasonable argument at least until Flatpak becomes much more popular. I will set it up elsewhere.
What is the target user of pacpak? Arch users or App developers?
I think Flatpak and Arch rolling release model mainly fix the same issue: Shipping cutting edge softwares quickly and stay close with upstream.
Arch users will find flatpak less necessary as long as the package is rolling out quickly enough.
For pacpak, it will be great if it could archive below working flow:
1. Upstream develop software on Arch, stay cutting edge. 2. Developer build packages using pacpak. 3. Those packages does not target Arch user, but other distro users. 4. Then app becomes a rolling application. And the running environment is just a subset of Arch linux. Security issues are fixed as quickly as us (Arch linux).
Regards, Florian Pelz