I've been a Debian user since the late 90s, and their packaging system is the main reason. Not the tools and package format, but the culture and strict rules that govern inclusion in the system.

Every time I see a new package system that promises to free creators of the burden of integration and compatibility with the rest of my installed software, it's a hard "no" from me--and there have been a lot of these over the years. The promise is always how easy and carefree it is for packagers, but the things that make Debian harder are the things that make it valuable. Careful integration with the rest of the system with matching dependency versions. Modular, carefully partitioned packages for complex systems that would otherwise be all-or-nothing. Ongoing maintenance and updates. Responsiveness to security updates. Following common rules for configuration, directory placement, init/systemd integration, etc.

cpak looks like yet another system designed to ignore the rest of my system as much as it can and live in its own little world. In other words, designing around the needs and goals of software packagers over the needs of users and long-term system maintenance. Solving the easy problems instead of the hard ones.

> designed to ignore the rest of my system as much as it can and live in its own little world.

Exactly what a small, locked-down system needs. A single-purpose server box. An advanced appliance, like a "smart TV", or media box, or an advanced home automation hub.

Yup. Ubuntu promises the best of both worlds, and in my experience the end result is noticeably worse than Debian. You notice when things are deliberate and tested versus cobbled together and made to work.