4 ms·

We're not going to cripple our modern programming language environments to suit an outdated system designed around mutually-exclusive soname dependencies, and w

by blasdel 16y ago

We're not going to cripple our modern programming language environments to suit an outdated system designed around mutually-exclusive soname dependencies, and we sure as hell aren't going to prostrate ourselves as a community before your baroque unnecessary social process. It's not just us affected whippersnappers causing problems — even the enterprisiest Java communities have given up on your packaging model.

cmsj 16y ago
So you're not prepared to change anything? Even if distros make changes as well? Why are these two groups not working together to enable magic for their users? Why would it be so bad, for example, to have something like this in a python script: import awesomelib >= 2.10 import specialsauce == 1.58 Of course this immediately opens up a veritable hydra of questions and corner cases and other considerations that need to be made in designing such a facility, but that's why there are smart programmers and smart distro makers out there :) I think it's fairly clear that there are grumpy, recalcitrant, belligerent people on all sides of this argument, and the people who lose most are the users that everyone claims to care about. As a user I feel that is deeply tragic and I feel like we have all failed.
- blasdel 16y ago
  import awesomelib >= 2.10 import specialsauce == 1.58 Is precisely the feature I love most about rubygems, and would love to have in Python. It's also a feature that Debian goes out of their way to eliminate because it violates their precious FHS, apt can't handle it at all (they get around that for important packages by mangling the names), and superficially overlaps with their 'alternatives' system. Where did you get the idea that I didn't want it? Unfortunately there's no implementation path to make it possible on Debian's side, no matter what the language communities do to compromise. apt can't handle it technically, and their release cycle process can't handle it socially.
- cmsj 16y ago
  I got the idea because you seemed to react in a way that suggested you thought any language changes to support better/easier packaging was "crippling". I'm not a skilled packager, so I can't get into a deep discussion of the parts that are missing on both sides, but it seems fairly clear that parts are missing on both sides. Perhaps it will take the work of, say, the ruby and ubuntu communities to demonstrate the change is possible and hugely beneficial for users, and encourage its adoption in Debian?
loewenskind 16y ago
Honest question: I was under the impression that Debian's packaging system was on of the best. Who has a better one?
- blasdel 16y ago
  Gentoo Portage is much better technically. It needs to be, because it uses a pure rolling-release model with no package freezes. Arch Linux has a similar model, but they did it more conservatively to make binary packages useful.
  - cmsj 16y ago
    IMHO it's difficult to say "better technically" - for one thing portage is much looser than dpkg. Depending on your goals that may be better or scarier! ;)

by blasdel 16y ago

cmsj 16y ago

So you're not prepared to change anything? Even if distros make changes as well? Why are these two groups not working together to enable magic for their users? Why would it be so bad, for example, to have something like this in a python script: import awesomelib >= 2.10 import specialsauce == 1.58 Of course this immediately opens up a veritable hydra of questions and corner cases and other considerations that need to be made in designing such a facility, but that's why there are smart programmers and smart distro makers out there :) I think it's fairly clear that there are grumpy, recalcitrant, belligerent people on all sides of this argument, and the people who lose most are the users that everyone claims to care about. As a user I feel that is deeply tragic and I feel like we have all failed.

blasdel 16y ago
import awesomelib >= 2.10 import specialsauce == 1.58 Is precisely the feature I love most about rubygems, and would love to have in Python. It's also a feature that Debian goes out of their way to eliminate because it violates their precious FHS, apt can't handle it at all (they get around that for important packages by mangling the names), and superficially overlaps with their 'alternatives' system. Where did you get the idea that I didn't want it? Unfortunately there's no implementation path to make it possible on Debian's side, no matter what the language communities do to compromise. apt can't handle it technically, and their release cycle process can't handle it socially.
cmsj 16y ago
I got the idea because you seemed to react in a way that suggested you thought any language changes to support better/easier packaging was "crippling". I'm not a skilled packager, so I can't get into a deep discussion of the parts that are missing on both sides, but it seems fairly clear that parts are missing on both sides. Perhaps it will take the work of, say, the ruby and ubuntu communities to demonstrate the change is possible and hugely beneficial for users, and encourage its adoption in Debian?

loewenskind 16y ago

Honest question: I was under the impression that Debian's packaging system was on of the best. Who has a better one?

blasdel 16y ago
Gentoo Portage is much better technically. It needs to be, because it uses a pure rolling-release model with no package freezes. Arch Linux has a similar model, but they did it more conservatively to make binary packages useful.
- cmsj 16y ago
  IMHO it's difficult to say "better technically" - for one thing portage is much looser than dpkg. Depending on your goals that may be better or scarier! ;)