This article seems to say that “the packaging model” is bad pretty much just because some distros patches packages to hell instead of updating them, and because Debian handles package maintenance a certain way, which feels a bit shortsighted to me.
The article’s reasoning might be flawed. I was mainly posting this because in the past I’ve been experiencing tangentially related problems with Debian’s packaging policy, and I think such problems are not publicized enough.
To say that Debian handles packaging “a certain way” is quite an understatement. In reality it just lets packages rot, as evidenced by the article.
When it does patch packages, it’s mostly to comply with their unbundling policies. In my case this lead to a nasty surprise when the public API of a Python package installed via apt is suddenly incomplete or buggy.
In that sense I do think that the conclusion of the article is correct, and not shortsighted at all. There is a problem with the way Linux distro packagers collaborate with software developers. Ideally packager and developer should be the same person.