Just got a steam deck and immediately checked out the desktop mode, and I was somewhat surprised to see KDE and pacman as opposed to GNOME and apt, I have nothing against the former though a strong preference for the latter, anyone know why Volvo went in this direction?

  • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    125
    ·
    7 months ago

    The popular opinion is that it was easier for them to get up-to-date packages that way.

    My opinion: It’s just what the people working on the Deck were using at the time themselves.

    Other reason might be that they had SteamOS 2 based on Debian and probably had some problems with it that they could solve on Arch more easily.

    • seaQueue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      82
      ·
      7 months ago

      Arch packaging is also significantly easier to work with in my experience. I’ve packaged for both for some years and I’ll take the Arch build system over wrangling dpkg every chance I can.

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        +1 to this. I built a few deb packages at a previous company. It was a solid packaging suite but good lord was it a pain to work through

      • patchexempt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        I feel like this is the answer. if you’ve ever had to maintain a build pipeline or repository for .deb or .rpm, it’s not exactly pleasant (it is extremely robust, however). arch packaging is very simple by comparison, and I really doubt they’d need much more.

      • Dandroid@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I have only ever packaged for RPM (the company I work for has our own RPM-based distro). How does it compare? I find RPM to be pretty easy, but I have nothing to compare against.