linux would be good if every package manager was pacman

@arh Why would a kernel care about a package manager?

pacman is in fact a garbage package manager, so I'm not sure what you're on about.

@Suiseiseki the kernel doesn't care, the user probably does care about what's on their machine.

i genuinely think that despite its flaws pacman is the most sensible from the ones i've encountered, apt will complain about broken packages if any little things goes wrong, dnf takes ages to complete a transaction, apk is kinda decent but not my favorite.
guix was cool when i tried it but i prefer the more traditional package manager experience, maybe i just need to get used to it. then there's snap and flatpak which are very far from being sensible.

@arh >pacman is the most sensible from the ones i've encountered
Doesn't it overwrite config files without asking?

@Suiseiseki @arh pacman is the reason I stopped using arch and it's derivatives years ago. I don't like having to boot into a live environment every few months to fix whatever pacman broke.

@Suiseiseki @arh I don't really have strong opinions on package mangers other than that other than flatpaks and snaps are also garbage; dnf and eopgk have given me the least grief from what I've used.