Add docs for community distributions

[richlander]

Describe the issue or suggestion

Arch (and I believe Alpine) don't install ASP.NET Core with the SDK. It would be helpful to cover that.

• dotnet watch can't work website-feedback#258
• https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/.NET
• https://archlinux.org/packages/?name=dotnet-sdk
• https://archlinux.org/packages/?name=aspnet-runtime
• https://aur.archlinux.org/packages?O=0&SeB=nd&K=dotnet&outdated=&SB=p&SO=d&PP=50&submit=Go

The AUR is quite awesome. It is one of the only ways to get .NET previews via a package manager. I have relied on that quite a bit for preview testing.

---

Associated WorkItem - 323540

[adegeo]

@richlander I'm not sure about this. It's not officially supported by the product team, right? Currently we're only including distros in the supported-os github page.

Maybe we could have some sort of "other" distro page that lists ways to install .NET on the non-supported OS, with a disclaimer, and links to their documentation if available? Such as a link to https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/.NET

[richlander]

Arch is supported via "best effort" per https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/main/linux.md.

The main topic to cover somewhere is that some distros don't include ASP.NET Core in their SDK distribution and that's something to check/be aware of. It doesn't have to be a page on Arch, in particular. Maybe we should have a page that documents our approach for other Linux distributions.

FYI: I just validated that Alpine doesn't have this challenge. Their .NET 8 SDK package includes ASP.NET Core.

[adegeo]

I still don't like adding the cost of maintaining an official doc on something that's not kept up-to-date and has some issues.

Looking at https://archlinux.org/packages/?sort=&q=dotnet I notice the following things:

1. .NET 9 is missing.
2. .NET 8 is flagged as out-of-date for some reason.
3. ASP.NET runtime is completely missing.
4. And the issue you said with the SDK missing the ASP.NET Runtime component seems odd too.

I just don't think we should create official documentation to cover the problems created by a community maintainer (as good intentioned as it may be) for a distro we're not really involved in.

Is the following scenario possible? The community maintainer creating the packages injects malware into the packages. The official MS docs tell users to go install these packages. Are we liable somehow?

Perhaps a github discussion with this information is more appropriate?

[richlander]

I don't think any of things actually matter. It's a question of whether we describe a distribution as official or not. I don't see it as our role to protect people from using the web.

I think we have a dual role:

• Document UX that are Microsoft-provided for people that care about that, noting that MS-provided solutions often build on top of third party solutions.
• Document links to UX provided by others as a means of increasing visibility for users and support the .NET ecosystem beyond what Microsoft does.

I changed the title to capture that.

Here are more to consider:

• https://snapcraft.io/dotnet-sdk
• https://containers.dev/features
• https://formulae.brew.sh/cask/dotnet-sdk
• https://formulae.brew.sh/cask/dotnet
• https://ports.macports.org/port/dotnet-cli
• https://pkgs.alpinelinux.org/packages?name=dotnet*&branch=edge&repo=&arch=x86_64&origin=&flagged=&maintainer=
• https://search.nixos.org/packages?channel=24.11&from=0&size=50&sort=relevance&type=packages&query=dotnet
• https://images.chainguard.dev/directory/image/dotnet-sdk/overview
• https://docs.velopack.io/getting-started/csharp

That's a partial list. Where should we document that these options are available? I don't think a GH issues is a good solution.