3 ms·
> Download Hugo. Never tried hugo, but it surely must be cleaner than jekyll. As a matter of policy I prefer to install tools packaged by my distribution. For
by enriquto 6y ago
> Download Hugo.
Never tried hugo, but it surely must be cleaner than jekyll. As a matter of policy I prefer to install tools packaged by my distribution. For debian, the jekyll package went through several "engines" and whatnot along the years, and each change broke the build. For some reason it even needed particular python versions, even if it is written in ruby. A complete nightmare. I honestly lost faith in static site generators after the experience with jekyll. Even if hugo is saner, it is still amenable to breaking as its debian package evolves, and I don't want to deal with that.
- nindalf 6y agoIf you care about breakage, don't rely on a package manager that will constantly change the package version. Grab the binary from the Github releases page and use it in perpetuity.
- enriquto 6y ago> If you care about breakage, don't rely on a package manager that will constantly change the package version. I do care about breakage of my C, C++ and Fortran programs, and I would be very surprised if updating gcc broke their build (unless using -Werror). Why can't static site generators, which are arguably much simpler than compilers, have the basic property of not breaking sites?
- unicornporn 6y agoHugo has no dependency (or rather they'd baked into the single binary), it's just a binary and even runs on my shared hosting. It's the only reason I switched from Jekyll. I had so much trouble with Jekyll breaking it was unbearable. Zola is another option.