I think it’s important to clarify up front that there are two distinct classes of package managers. The article does that really well.
Btw, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what would be good names for those. For example, the article calls them "user-centric package managers" (e.g. apt-get) vs. "developer-centric package managers" (e.g. pip.)
For the same ontology, I’ve come up with "system(-level) package managers" vs. "platform package managers". With the former, I’m trying to emphasize that those affect the state of the entire host system. The latter usually has a development or platform environment as its boundary. Regardless, I kinda like the terms that the article proposes.
thanks for reading! yeah I think system- and platform- are great terms too. It's kind of a weird distinction because my gut feeling is that platform-level package managers kind of grew out of system-level package managers...but I don't know that for sure
Comments
Thanks for posting this.
I think it’s important to clarify up front that there are two distinct classes of package managers. The article does that really well.
Btw, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what would be good names for those. For example, the article calls them "user-centric package managers" (e.g. apt-get) vs. "developer-centric package managers" (e.g. pip.)
For the same ontology, I’ve come up with "system(-level) package managers" vs. "platform package managers". With the former, I’m trying to emphasize that those affect the state of the entire host system. The latter usually has a development or platform environment as its boundary. Regardless, I kinda like the terms that the article proposes.
thanks for reading! yeah I think system- and platform- are great terms too. It's kind of a weird distinction because my gut feeling is that platform-level package managers kind of grew out of system-level package managers...but I don't know that for sure