Standards for app installation

Larryrl

I was reading an article which said that the reason you have trouble installing packages between distros, is when the package has dependencies, and sometimes a flavor of linux like debian will have it's own special folder for some stuff so that even if you could install it on your distro, it would still look for things where it expects them on a debian install. So I am wondering why there are no standards between distros as far as the locations packages get installed to. If this standard were to be adopted then any distro could install any piece of software reguardless of it it is a deb package, or rpm like red hat uses. That would require a package opener that would recognize and open all of the major types of packages. It's just a thought.

Justin

Larryrl Not everyone agrees on the same standard, it's why universal package formats have exploded into life, snaps, appimages, flatpaks, etc. They are someone's attempt to solve this issue. However, they bring with them their own integration issues sometimes.

Edit: Formatting

craigtoyoracer

One word answer, ego. (not what designers wish to hear, but is their driving force)
I'll explain, someone creates OS -ABC, someone else creates an OS -123, what incentive is there to have the OS's work together. Each will argue to the other, change to my way of working. = ego.

I believe the only way would be if the Kernal was mounted to a full library, wrapped in a installer with full hardware connections(using LHQ) and somehow a choice for multi compilers. Then DE's could mount to that with a common framework.

It would still result in people wanting to do it their way because of Choice. Which is the great common denominator of Linux.

dbarron

I enjoy (and abhor) this issue. It would be nice if everyone used a standard. It's also nice to have a variety, because that gives the chance for a superior solution to arise from the masses (of standards, tools, etc).
If asked to vote on adopting a standard for most things, I am not sure where I would come down (it's not at all clear). I would fear getting painted into a monotypic corner, but also fear fragmentation when everything is going in every direction.
The greatest thing about Linux is the freedom (to do different things), it's also the worst thing. I dunno.

kyrios

Setting the same files location on all distro wouldn't magically make the applications portable or solve issues with dependencies which are rarely due to file location but rather to version (i.e: an application expecting openssl 1.1 while the distro offers version 1.0). Also not all distributions compile the libraries with the same option. For example a distribution could compile a multimedia library without AV1 support and thet application needs the library with AV1 support.
It wouldn't make the different package formats interoperable, you can make .deb, .rpm, .eopkg, ... packages for applications with the same files location, it wouldn't magically make these packages working on other distros.

Last but not least, it woul kill innovation. For example, Solus borrowed the stateless package concept from ClearLinux. this wouldn't be possible if everyone had to use the same paths. Solus (try as much as possible) to not use /opt or /usr/local to make things easier. This wouldn't be possible too if everyone was forced to use the same.
And the different linux systems have different needs and constraints, there isn't only the desktop but also the servers, embedded devices, etc... All it would do is making the system even less flexible than Windows (although it's not common, you can install it on the D:\ drive, move or rename the "Program Files" folder somewhere else, etc...).

Last but not least, the filesystem hiearchy is standardised and distros usually follow the standards.