back

by rbanffy·18y ago·view on hn ↗
Package management goes way beyond installing and uninstalling stuff. A good package manager, like apt or yum, will help your computer self-update (not only the core OS but every program you installed in your computer, through the same interface). It also shines where you don't want to know from where you download a given package - you just ask for the package manager to install it. The good package managers will also deal with dependencies and conflicts between packages, which is something that may not appear when you deal with applications but happens all the time with libraries.

You insist there is no need for package management because you never had real package management. The Macintosh method is very simple (much better than the Windows way) but it fails miserably when what you are installing is not an application.

1 comments
I have used "real" package management, both on Linux and Mac OS X, and for native Mac OS X applications it's largely unnecessary. I rarely run into OS X apps that require I install a bunch of dependencies, and most OS X applications these days check for updates on their own. For those that don't there's AppFresh: http://metaquark.de/appfresh/

However, I do agree the method "fails miserably when what you are installing is not an application." MacPorts and Fink are decent solutions, though I admit they could be much better.

I really don't think that duplicating libraries (a requirement for OSX-like .App bundles with no external dependencies) or apps checking and self-updating by app-specific methods is a good solution either.

For every duplicated library, you introduce the security and stability problems of that specific version, each will have to be addressed by the application provider, who may or may not be interested in the latest developments in the libraries it uses, instead of the original software developer. This thing can grow nasty in no time.