Linux

48338 readers

475 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

764

Canonical's Steam Snap is Causing Headaches for Valve (www.omgubuntu.co.uk)

submitted 10 months ago by pnutzh4x0r@lemmy.ndlug.org to c/linux@lemmy.ml

259 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Timothée Besset, a software engineer who works on the Steam client for Valve, took to Mastodon this week to reveal: “Valve is seeing an increasing number of bug reports for issues caused by Canonical’s repackaging of the Steam client through snap”.

“We are not involved with the snap repackaging. It has a lot of issues”, Besset adds, noting that “the best way to install Steam on Debian and derivative operating systems is to […] use the official .deb”.

Those who don’t want to use the official Deb package are instead asked to ‘consider the Flatpak version’ — though like Canonical’s Steam snap the Steam Flatpak is also unofficial, and no directly supported by Valve.

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

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 60 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (38 children)

I know the "Arch BTW" meme exists for a reason, but one of the reasons I haven't been able to drag myself away from Arch-based distros in recent years is that it allows me to always have current versions of my software while also just not having to care about all this appimage/flatpak/snap brouhaha.

I guess it's somewhat of a "pick your poison" kind of situation, but I find dealing with the typical complaints about Arch based distros to be both less of a problem than detractors would have you believe, and less of a headache than having to pick one of three competing alternative packaging approaches, or worse, to use a mix of them all. Standing on the sidelines of the topic it seems like a small number of people really like that these options exist, and I'm happy for those people. But mostly I'm grateful that I don't have to care about this kind of thing.

Edited to add: Seeing how this thread has developed in the past 5 hours convinces me anew that "on the sidelines" is where I want to stay on this topic. 😁

[–] tigerjerusalem@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (9 children)

As someone who knows nothing about Arch, what do you do if your app exists only as a .deb file? Can you install it?

[–] leopold@lemmy.kde.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I have found no such instances. Software which is only officially packaged as deb will usually be unofficially repackaged on the AUR regardless.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I distribute an app I made for Linux, macOS and Windows. The Linux version I only have available as a .deb. Released recently and has about 200 users so far, but definitely exists. No Arch user contacted me yet.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

When folks start wanting it, someone will package it for the AUR, or if it becomes even somewhat mainstream it will end up in the main repos eventually.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Possibly, though I wonder how updates would work then. Currently I have a Debian repository that contains a single package, and installing the .deb from my website also installs the repository so you get updates as with any other package.

If someone repackages it on AUR, I guess they will also need to update it every time I update the .deb, so it's always behind? Of course it would be better if I provided a first party package for AUR, but I can spend time on that when there is actual interest. Most of my users are on Windows anyway.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Usually what you describe is what they do. Someone "owns" the AUR package (and it's not quite literally any random user IIRC - you have to be accepted as an AUR maintainer I think) and they then take on the responsibility to repackage it whenever the author (you) releases a new version. There is also a mechanism for users to flag the AUR package as out of date in case that maintainer misses a release, and if they abandon it (or even if folks just don't like how they package it) someone else can package it, assuming someone else wants to.

Sometimes the AUR maintainer is the dev themselves. I can't think of a good example currently, but I know I've seen it before.

I don't know the process for how things end up in the official repos, but I would guess it's similar to however any other distros identify software they want to officially package.

[–] sloppy_diffuser@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

They may not have to. For example, Plex on nixos just unpacks the deb and installs the files the "nix" way.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/e18f8d69fb90bc71c33dc0851e6482284fe2e71e/pkgs/servers/plex/raw.nix

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (35 replies)