[arch-general] snapcraft.io IMO gets across the message that snaps are appropriate for Arch Linux

[Tinu Weber]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 14:40:14 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> An excerpt from
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2016-October/287739.html
>
> ogra at ubuntu.com is deeply involved in working on snappy.
>      ^^^^^^^^^^
>      ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2016 14:40:32 +0200
>   Subject: Re: Question about Snaps
>   To: ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
>   From: ogra at ubuntu.com
>
>   [snip]
>
>   snaps are the future in the ubuntu ecosystem (and most likely also in
>   many others, when looking at the consortium of different distros and
>   projects that decide on their direction now in the technical oversight
>   board [1]) [snip]
>
>
>   [1] appstream, Arch, debian, elementary, KDE, Ubuntu, VLC, Fedora
>                  ^^^^
>                  ^^^^

So there is somebody out there claiming that Arch Linux, Debian, Fedora
and whoever else will replace their own packaging ecosystem by something
like that, and the sensation media is picking it up and spreading it all
over the intertubes.

So what?

All we can do is:

* Remove snapd from the repos and piss off everyone. As stated above,
  there are no technically valid reasons to do so; AL supports it, and
  it's fine.

* Make a "public statement" (who? where?) that AL does not intend to
  move to snaps in the future. If one thing is dead-sure, it's that
  Debian will not replace their sophisticated software packaging
  infrastructure by something like this, but I couldn't find anything
  resembling a statement by the Debian folks on the web, so I don't
  think the situation is that severe. Again, this would just be pissing
  off people, nothing more.

* Let them have their little moment of euphoria and see where it goes.
  Most likely nowhere. The majority of upstream devs will keep on
  writing software the way they've done so far and let the distribution
  maintainers do the rest (because that's easier for everyone).

As you may have noticed, I vote for option 3 :-)

Best,
Tinu
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20161124/e4b9c676/attachment-0001.asc>