OK, I suppose I'll have to write something.
I MUCH prefer the simple RISC OS way of installing and removing applications to the package management approach used on Unix and elsewhere.
Package management comes into its own when an application consists of lots of files scattered all over the disc, as on many Windowss and Unix applications. AFAIK this does not apply to most RISC OS apps.
If there are problems with shared resources, would it not be better to try to build on the strengths of RISC OS. Package management is only necessary on other OS because of an inferior and more complex installation process compared to RISC OS. This leads to the sort of problems with DLLs that seem so prevalent on Windows.
I much prefer the natural RISC OS approach of an app checking for the presence of the resources it needs, as with RMEnsure for modules for example. The RISC OS way is for the user to be in control of what happens. I for one would be unhappy if a library for instance was replaced with a later version without my knowledge.
It is one of its major strengths of RISC OS that we do not suffer from the nightmare of Windows type DLLs. and all the complexity of managing them. I would hate it if this initiative encouraged application writers to move away from the simple RISC OS approach unnecessarily.
After all, most RISC OS applications are very simple to install. A package approach will not make it any simpler in most cases.
Most UNIX installations, even where packaging is used are not simple, you need to understand what you are doing.. Most Windows ones are not either, but the complexity is usually hidden from the user by the installer program, making installation simple provided nothing goes wrong. Of the three I prefer RISC OS.