A newer category that had extremely close results in its first 2 years.

--jeremy

None of the above should have been an option as well as .deb, .rpm, or source etc...

Perhaps it would be better to add "Universal" to the title? Universald packaging format of the year? That would preclude .deb & .rpm then.

Source isn't a packaging format per se, since ALL packages are at some point derived from source, and you cannot simply INSTALL from source without compiling first. So it shouldn't be included anyway.

Agreed, or add the other options for a more universal selection.

And here I thought the point of source code was the fact it could be used universally.. lol

(None of above)

yes, it's universal, but it's not a packaging format. You can't just install from it without doing something else first.

That was indeed the intended poll title. Updated. https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post6068152

--jeremy

Absolutely! I run debian based, and its only apt that I use. Remove all the other from my system

Favourite is apt - whilst universal would be tgz/bz2.

Apt is 'universal' over all the distros that I use.

Actually I was thinking about a dockerized (or containerized) packaging format, but it is not yet "invented". Probably in the future....

To be fair, both Snap and Flatpak AIM to be similar to a containerized (being sandboxed) format, and it can work just fine as such if the people packaging do it correctly (from what I understand) on at least flatpak. I personally dislike snap so not as certain that snap in and of itself is ready for that, but probably is.

The Linux Standard Packaging Format is RPM.

... Of those listed here, probably Flatpak, not counting security implications.

Universal:

Voted for Appimage, because it annoyed me the least of the three.

TBH, 'apt' ain't a 'packaging format. It's a package management format. Slight difference.

.deb or .rpm are not 'universal', either. Those that require .debs won't install .rpms without some form of conversion. And vice-versa. The fact that the actual content of both is identical is neither here nor there.....it's the package-management 'specifics' that set them apart for most folks.

The title, as it stands, is correct, for the choices given. Every one of those three is intended to be a 'universal' format in the sense that you can run them on any OS, regardless of which camp it belongs to.

But Snaps are heavily promoted by Canonical. FlatPak is, I believe, developed more on the Red Hat side of things. So - given that the Sherlock Holmes theory holds water here; after process of elimination, whatever is left over at the very end MUST be the true facts of the case (however 'fantastic') - this really only leaves the AppImage as the one, truly 'universal' packaging format.

Sorry if y'all don't like my logic.

Mm-hm. Oh, it's 'universal' right enough.....but it still ain't a 'packaging' format, is it? More of a 'play on words', I should have said...


Mike.