Philippe PITTOLI 4 years ago
parent 70cdcc011e
commit be8eeab6db

@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
title = "BaguetteOS, hand book"
paginate_by = 5
# Rant about software complexity
Juste lire un fichier YAML est une tâche compliquée sur un ubuntu.
Pour cet exploit presque sur-humain d'avoir rendu compliqué un truc aussi con qu'un simple binaire lisant un fichier, je pense que nous pouvons remercier les efforts conjoints de Snap (qui empêche les applications Snap de lire des fichiers), Debian pour leur gestionnaire de paquet qui m' proposé direct d'installer des paquets avec Snap puisque lui ne savait pas faire, le développeur qui s'est dit que c'était une bonne idée de distribuer son application rendue inutilisable, et probablement Cthulhu pour avoir orchestré ça.

@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
title = "BaguetteOS, hand book"
paginate_by = 5
# Rant about software complexity <side-note>*or why reading a file now requires docker*</side-note>
*I wanted to manipulate a YAML file on my Ubuntu, here's my story.*
The only thing I needed was to read a YAML file to extract a single field in it, nothing complicated.
So, I tried to install `yq`.
I'm on Ubuntu, I use `apt`.
# apt install yq
No apt package "yq", but there is a snap with that name.
Try "snap install yq"
So, `apt` doesn't know how to install this application.
Fine, this is a developer tool, maybe it is too recent for my *kinda* old long-term-support OS.
Still, this message tells us a couple of things:
1. we know we do not provide all the available tools<br />
And this is perfectly fine.
We may not have every tool packaged at a moment, or available for every OS version.
2. ... but we **know how to provide the tool to you anyway**<br />
That part is weird.
Why don't you give me the package yourself then, since it will be installed on my machine regardless if someone tested it?
Why does another package manager does the job instead of the package manager of my OS?<br />
*Snap seems to be a good substitute to `apt`, <u>says `apt`</u>*<br />
Now I have 2 package managers, one for *supported* applications from my OS and the other by... no matter who, but hey they tell me it's secure and stuff.
OK, now I will use an alternate package manager. Fine.
# snap install yq
I do have `yq` on my machine now, **hooray**!
$ yq read shard.yml
22:54:42 main [ERRO] open shard.yml: permission denied
Wait, what? I do have the permissions, it's my own file!
Let's check what's the developer has to say...
Snap notes
yq installs with with strict confinement in snap, this means it doesn't have direct access to root files.
*(Note: I'm not even in root files here.)*
To read root files you can:
1. read from standard input
2. use Sponge
*(I don't know what sponge is, and I frankly don't want to, I just want to read a stupid file)*
3. write in a temporary file
# snap remove yq
yq removed
What other solution to the problem does the developer explore? **Docker**.
<img src="/no.png" alt="No." class="meanie-img" />
I won't install an application designed to run virtual machines **just to read a file**.
Making it complicated to provide a simple application **written in a language design to deploy applications easily** is an un-human achievement.
Thanks Cthulhu, I guess.
# Okay okay, let's try to answer this question: who's to blame here?
- The developer?<br />
He tried to provide its application for everybody, including poeple installing applications only through `snap` and `docker`.
AFAIK, at no point he is responsible for this mess.
- `Snap` and `Docker`?<br />
They respond to simple requests, they have a purpose.
**Some things were not possible on the different OSs, so they were developed.**
There was a need behind those.
- The original package manager...<br />
If there was a way to get my application, it **should have been** through the OS packager manager.
Since it wasn't possible, I had to learn how to get the application from non trusted sources with a parasit application running over the very simple binary provided by the developer.
To get the application I downloaded a binary version, compiled statically, directly from the github page.
<u>Am I on Windows in the early 00's?</u>
Is my package manager still **useful**?
Another possibility would have to download the application from the package distribution of the language used.
How long has this practice been used?
That's just a way of skipping packaging for an OS.
Apparently, it seems okay for developers to provide a `Snap` package and a `Docker` image for a simple, statically compiled binary that has **no dependencies** whatsoever, but not a single OS package.
Maybe, the complexity of OS packaging is way too high.
What's sure is that this developer did not seem lazy...
# Conclusion: package managers failed us
*and that's the only real conclusion we can have here*
**Package management should be performed by the OS package manager.**
OSs should be that simple.
But hey, now we have `Baguette` and, above all, slotting.
Give it a try.