I want to install
CL tells me I need to install 1.4GB of this giant bundle for a simple tool. Surely this is not a sane way to operate a distribution?
I constantly hear how awful
swupd is. I just don’t understand how clear linux can be so good and the package manager so awful.
This is a feature. Not a bug.
If your storage is too small, the correct solution is to buy a big one.
Bear in mind that the targeted usage scenario is cloud and data center, not daily desktop usage.
This is a feature. Not a bug.
One can also have a feature of composability. This might come as a surprise, but actually these are not mutually exclusive design goals.
Big bundles can contain little bundles, which can contain smaller bundles even.
Actually it’s far worse. When installed
sysadmin-basic-dev uses 13GB on my system.
How big is this tool
sg_ses I need? 443kb.
That’s clear linux design choice. You can always compile/download binaries from source.
If you feel like that’s a program most people will need alone, you can always create a package request on github.
Another, less supported, way is to download the rpm and install it with dnf-tools (or something similar)
Yes and from my experience, a dumb one. Additionally CL actually does use the sub-bundles concept. Great! So where is my bundle?
Well the package I need is actually even included, but not as a sub-bundle it seems. Why wouldn’t you just package it with a sub-bundle?
Oh I don’t disagree, however it’s the point of a package manager , so you don’t need to muck about finding and compiling source.
Please make PR to swupd-client and autospec to bring in the features you suggested.
sg3_utils-dev is under the Included packages section, not Included bundles, so it’s not already a bundle. Packages aren’t exposed directly, and that’s by design. Here’s some of the reasoning behind bundles.
You can request
sg_utils to be added to its own bundle; just follow the Issues link at the top of that page.
Yes I understood the distinction. However, I think this system is just badly thought out. Anyway enough complaining. Let me do what you suggest…,.
Ok so I got to Issues link. Time to add a new Bundle request… Yet, that does not appear to be an option. (See screenshot)
The only option is to request a packge. The problem is it already IS a package, as you pointed out. So now what?
You can just choose Enhancement request, or even Open a blank issue.
You might even suggest adding
sg_utils to the
storage_utils bundle, which is still bigger than what you need, but it probably logically fits there.
And then I just spotted this:
$ sudo swupd search-file /usr/bin/sg_ses
Downloading all Clear Linux manifests
Searching for '/usr/bin/sg_ses'
Bundle os-testsuite-0day (47 MB to install)
Bundle sysadmin-basic-dev [installed] (12206 MB on system)
Thank you. Did not know about that
search-file functionality. I’ll use enhancement request.
It still seems crazy to me to go to these lengths. Don’t see why they simple didn’t allow packages to be installed, and why this arbitary bundle distinction. Yes the 47MB is more reasonable than 12GB, but still its a 400kb tool and who knows what else is in
The thing to consider is that for everyone of me that take the time to complain probably a 100 more will go ‘meh’ and not consider CL again based on the crazyness of the package manager. No one might argue “who needs users” but in opensource if you fail to capture mindshare, your project doesn’t survive.
Just for historical reference, here’s some additional discussion around bundles, sizes, and why:
Yeah. I actually like the idea in theory, if it came with ability to install packages too. Don’t see why its has to be a binary option though?
Why not let noobs and power users have both methods?
The issue seems to be death by a thousand cuts cos “it mostly works,except when it doesnt” is a bit of a lower bar than the other package managers.
The team seems to be aware of this and to me this is the crux.
I get the idealism, its cool and all, but also why is this the chosen hill to die on?
“You know guys CL might be a failure in terms of adoption, but at least it had a elegant simple package manager!” (*definitions of ‘simple’ and ‘elegant’ subject to change)