<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<html>
<h2>Why some communities are not using 0install</h2>
<p>
This page collects feedback from projects that didn't use 0install.
</p>
<h3>Language-specific package managers</h3>
<p>
Most programming languages need a way to share libraries. Relying on native package managers doesn't work for the usual reasons (e.g. Windows doesn't have a package manager, developers like their packages to be up-to-date, developers don't like installing build dependencies as root, it should be possible to use a library without getting it added to every distribution's repository, etc).
</p>
<p>
Using a generic package manager brings a number of advantages:
</p>
<ul>
<li>You can depend on things written in other languages (e.g, you can depend on the compiler, build tools and documentation formatters, not just on libraries in your own language).</li>
<li>You can use the same technology to distribute the resulting programs after building them, if you want.</li>
<li>You get access to robust code that already covers many cases you might not have considered (e.g. resolving complex dependency requirements, support for other platforms, checking digital signatures, etc).</li>
<li>Users only have to learn one extra package manager, not one per language.</li>
</ul>
<p>
Since 0install is ideal for this kind of thing, we are collecting feedback from projects which have decided to build their own systems instead.
</p>
<ul>
<li><a href='https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlQ_ban3-1YrdFJfdlJwNkpENUdMVXJRbE04d29LN1E'>Spreadsheet of requirements (Google Docs)</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
Some other links:
</p>
<ul>
<li><a href='http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.zero-install.devel/4993/focus=5038'>Haskell (cabal)</a> - email discussion</li>
</ul>
<p>
If you want to add something, please post to <a href='support.html'>the mailing list</a>.
</p>
</html>
