linuxmemes

20880 readers

4 users here now

I use Arch btw

Sister communities:

LemmyMemes: Memes
LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts

Community rules

Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
Be civil
Post Linux-related content
No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

742

Flatpak haters seem to believe that if an app isn't on their distro's repos, it's the developers' fault. (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

198 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Makefiles/automake isn’t a reasonable expectation these days, with a plethora of languages and build toolchains, but good, clear instructions are definitely something to include.

As for the Makefiles, I meant that for whatever build toolchain the project uses - because the rules to build a project are an essential part of the project, linking the source code into a working library or executable. Whether it is cmake, or gnu make, or whatever else there is - that's not so important as long as those build toolchains are available cross platforms.

I think what is really missing in the open source world is a distribution-agnostic standard how to describe application dependencies so that package maintainers can auto-generate distro-packages with the distribution-specific dependencies based on that "dependencies" file.

Similar to debian dependencies Depends: libstdc++6 (>= 10.2.1) but in a way that identifies code modules, not packages, so that distributions that package software together differently will still be able to identy findPackageFor( dependency )

I would really like to add this kind of info to my projects and have a tool that can auto-build a repo-package from those.