I don't really see that. Containers have mostly ingrained themselves into application deployment, but the trends in GNU/Linux packaging seem to be heading toward compressed bundles (combined with some form of access control like AppArmor or POSIX caps to get some form of sandboxing and resource isolation). At least that's what Ubuntu Snappy seems to be. This is similar to Klik, Autopackage, 0install, OS X bundles and even the Windows way of stuffing your DLLs into a single directory namespace (though with a common format and infrastructure).
Nix and Guix are in leagues of their own that have nothing to do with containers specifically.
Everyone else is sticking to the same conventional system package managers and I don't see that changing. The systemd developers are proposing their own odd scheme based on btrfs volumes that is still in its very early stages.
I don't really see that. Containers have mostly ingrained themselves into application deployment, but the trends in GNU/Linux packaging seem to be heading toward compressed bundles (combined with some form of access control like AppArmor or POSIX caps to get some form of sandboxing and resource isolation). At least that's what Ubuntu Snappy seems to be. This is similar to Klik, Autopackage, 0install, OS X bundles and even the Windows way of stuffing your DLLs into a single directory namespace (though with a common format and infrastructure).
Nix and Guix are in leagues of their own that have nothing to do with containers specifically.
Everyone else is sticking to the same conventional system package managers and I don't see that changing. The systemd developers are proposing their own odd scheme based on btrfs volumes that is still in its very early stages.