Sorry, but to be frank, I think you're a bit ignorant here. Let me explain, starting from the bottom:

> I would have one package manager that installs everything into a global package cache, […]

There is exactly one package manager. If you're on Debian or Ubuntu, it's dpkg. If you're on RedHat, it's rpm. If you're on Arch, it's pacman. Yes, some of the BSDs have two (base packages + ports tree), but they're the odd ones out.

pip, cargo, go*, etc. are not the same thing. I know they're called that but they don't perform the same function: none of them can create a working system installation. Let's call them module managers to have a distinct label.

> and then pick the correct version of libraries at run time (for Python: at import time).

That's easy for Python, and incredibly hard for a whole lot of other things. A module manager can do that. A package manager needs to work for a variety of code and ecosystems. Could it try to do it where possible? Maybe. But then the behavior is not uniform and made harder for users to understand. Could it still be worth it? Sure. But not obviously so.

I would also say that this is just giving up on trying to keep a reasonable ecosystem. It's not impossible to reduce the dependency hell that some things have devolved into. It just needs interest in doing so, and discipline while effecting it. I'd really prefer not giving up on this.

> Get rid of the requirement that there is only one stable (minor) version of a package in the distribution at one time. This has become unworkable.

This is to some degree why distros are breaking apart Python. Some bits are easy to install in parallel, some aren't. There can only be one "python". Worse, there can only be one "libpython3.9.so.1.0".

> Distros, please stop screwing over Python packaging. It is incredible that Debian/Ubuntu pick Python apart and put modules into different packages. They even create a fake venv command that tells you to please install python-venv.

They're trying to achieve the very goals you're describing. Trying to give you a working python without having to download and "install" some weird thing somewhere else. And at the same time trying to keep the module managers working when they're replacing some module but not all of them.

On a subjective level, it's obvious you have a strong distaste for this ("they even create a fake") — but could you please make objective arguments how and why this breaks things? If you're getting an incomplete Python installation, that seems like a packaging bug the distro needs to fix. Is that it? Or are there other issues?

> If I would get to redesign package management (both for Linux distros and for languages),

Well, and now we're here: https://xkcd.com/927/

And, I'm sorry to say this, but your post does not convey to me the existence of any essential C codebase packaging knowledge on your end. I don't know about other ecosystems, but I have done packaging work on C codebases (with Python bindings no less), and you don't seem to be aware of very basic issues like header/library mismatches and runtime portability.

If you are interested in this topic, please familiarize yourself with the world of existing package managers, the problems they run into, and how they solve them. There's a lot to learn there, and they're quite distinct from each other on some fronts too. Some problems are still unsolved even.