How do you guys get software that is not in your distribution’s repositories?

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    6·
    10 months ago

    Why not just stick to what we’ve always been doing?

    1. wget something.tar.gz
    2. tar something.tar.gz
    3. man tar
    4. tar xzf something.tar.gz
    5. cd something
    6. ls -al
    7. ./config.sh
    8. chmod +x config.sh
    9. ./config.sh
    10. make config
    11. Try to figure out where to get some obscure dependency, with the right version number. Discover that the last depency was hosted on the dev’s website that the dev self-hosted when it went belly up 5 years ago. Finally find the lib on some weird site with a TLD you could have sworn wasn’t even in latin characters.
    12. make config
    13. make
    14. Go for coffee
    15. make install
    16. SU root
    17. make install
    • merthyr1831@lemmy.mlEnglish
      3·
      10 months ago

      I much prefer our modern package format solutions:

      1. sudo apt install something
      2. open
      3. wtf this is like 6 months old
      4. find a PPA hosted by someone claiming to have packaged the new version
      5. search how to install PPAs
      6. sudo apt <I forgot>
      7. install app finally
      8. wtf it’s 2 months old and full of bugs
      9. repo tells me to report to original developer
      10. report bugs
      11. mfw original dev breaks my kneecaps for reporting a bug in out of date versions packed with weird dependency constraints they can’t recreate
  • BF2040@lemmy.world
    3·
    10 months ago

    I understand appimages. I use them exclusively. Can someone explain what flatpak and SNAP are and how they work? I have autism so please be as clear and concise as possible?

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    3·
    10 months ago

    Native package manager > Native binaries > AppImage > Flatpak.

    Yes, snap isn’t even on the scale.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      6·
      10 months ago

      Not a fan of AppImages myself. For an universal format it has surprising amount of issues with different distros, in my experience. And the whole Windows style “go to a website, download the AppImage, if you want to update it, go to the web page again and download it again” is one thing I wanted to get away from. At least they don’t come with install wizards, that clicking through menus thing was a pain.

      For one off stuff I run once and never need again, AppImage is alright. But not being built-in with sandboxing, repos, all that stuff, it just seems like a step back.

    • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      10 months ago

      I’m a technically savvy but new to Linux user who installed Mint as my primary OS about a month ago. So far I’ve used Flatpaks and AppImages without any issue and haven’t come across snaps. Would you explain the differences and why I would care about one over another?

      • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
        0·
        10 months ago

        IMO flatpaks are the future of installing linux apps. The comment you replied to lives in the past. System package manager should be for system binaries, not for applications.

        • Schmeckinger@lemmy.world
          1·
          10 months ago

          But I like my applications years out of date and I think its good that every distro has to spend manhours on packaging it individually.

            • Schmeckinger@lemmy.world
              1·
              10 months ago

              I see the appeal for the package manager for a lot of things, but space got so incredibly cheap and fast that duplication is way less of a deal than the effort to make stuff work the traditional way. But im not a real linux user. I don’t like tinkering, I want to download something and it works. And the amazing thing is we can have both. If people like spending time to package something be my guest.

              The funniest interaction I had recently. I downloaded a program that isn’t in my package manager or had any sort of flatpack/appimage so I downloaded it as a deb and it didn’t run because of some dependency. So I could clone the git and build it from source which might have worked, but I was too lazy to. So I just downloaded the windows exe and ran it through wine, which worked flawlessly.

      • SorryQuick@lemmy.ca
        3·
        10 months ago

        That’s exactly what the vast majority of AUR packages do already? You can also apply modifications to the compilation process if needed.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      2·
      10 months ago

      Rpg paper maker

      Though the Linux version is now in a “do not use” state. The developer decided to just make it into a web app because it was only working on Ubuntu

    • hperrin@lemmy.world
      1·
      10 months ago

      My software, QuickDAV, is not in the AUR. It’s open source, and I release it only as an AppImage, because I am lazy.

      • folkrav@lemmy.ca
        1·
        10 months ago

        I guess we should have added the word “notable”

        I’m terribly sorry, you left the door wide open ;)

        I’m curious, what makes AppImage a good choice for the lazy developer? Is it easier to create?

        • Samueru@lemmy.ml
          2·
          10 months ago

          I’m curious, what makes AppImage a good choice for the lazy developer? Is it easier to create?

          The appimage is basically just git clone -> make -> make install DESTDIR=/path/to/AppDir -> wget appimagecreationtool and finally appimagecreationtool /path/to/AppDir and that’s it you have your appimage.

          appimagecreationtool being several tools that can create the appimage from an AppDir, like linuxdeploy, linuxdeploqt, go-appimage, etc

          And that on itself isn’t complex either, it if basically running ldd on the binary, then copy those libraries into the AppDir and finally run patchelf to patch the paths in the binaries and libraries, suyu uses a deploy script instead of using those tools, which I’ve recently forked and began expanding.

          I don’t know how easy it is to make a flatpak or snap, but I do know the dev of zen browser hates dealing with the flatpak and iirc right now the flatpak is outdated as result.

          EDIT: Also lite-xl has been making a flatpak for like 2 years and it isn’t ready yet.

        • hperrin@lemmy.world
          1·
          10 months ago

          Ouch. xD

          It’s super easy to create. And you distribute it on your own, so it’s basically like an installer exe on Windows. In my mind it’s one step above only offering source code.

      • oldfart@lemm.ee
        1·
        10 months ago

        There’s so much random, useful software distributed only as appimages. But not notable enough for packaging fanboys.

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    1·
    10 months ago

    I hate fucking snap. It might be enough to make me switch distros if Ubuntu keeps up with it (which I am sure they intend to).

    The continual “you have new snaps” or whatever it was message every time I’m just trying to have a web browser open made me eventually figure out how to install firefox for real on all of my computers.

    EDIT: I think you may have convinced me to try out Debian on my next OS installation.

  • HStone32@lemmy.world
    1·
    10 months ago

    If I could, I’d compile all my software from source. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of open source developers don’t like writing software in C, which means the burden of sorting through dependancy-hell has been deferred to my shoulders instead.

    • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
      1·
      10 months ago

      In that case install Gentoo. Compiling everything from source is its thing. And on the way it will resolve all the dependencies for you. The dependencies you want.

  • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    1·
    10 months ago
    1. Compile from source
    2. Find alternative
    3. Deploy in VM/Docker

    If I wanted snap, flatpak or appimages, I would use windows. Shared dependencies or death.

    • lengau@midwest.social
      1·
      10 months ago

      Flatpaks and snaps both have shared dependencies, just at a less granular level than debs. OCI images and VMs are pretty much the extreme opposite of shared dependencies.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        1·
        10 months ago

        I don’t remember what program it was, the dev explained it wasn’t available as flatpak because flatpaks are unsafe or something. Then the installation guide went “well anyway here’s curl | sudo bash.” Like, lmao. Talk about bad security practices.