3 ms·

>> why are we trying to use language specific packaging tools to build packages rather than just building OS specific packages where dependencies are handled by

by u801e 4y ago

>> why are we trying to use language specific packaging tools to build packages rather than just building OS specific packages where dependencies are handled by apt for deb packages or dnf for rpm packages? >> >> These are language agnostic and can get the job done. > Because I have dozens of colleagues, each with their own os/distribution, developing an application that needs to lock down dot releases of dependencies to the versions running in production I assume that the production environment isn't running dozens of os versions and distributions. For development, using a VM or container running the same os version and distro that's used in production and using that OS's package format for packaging the software and installing it in the dev environment (on the container or VM) would work. You're testing to see if the software works in the production environment, not someone's preferred os/distribution. > and update them at the same time I'm not as familiar with apt, but dnf has a version lock feature that would allow you to lock down the dependencies to specific versions. You could update them and test them during development and update the version lock file to pull down the updated version of the dependency when updating production.

groestl 4y ago
For every dependency that's missing from the upstream distribution in the exact version we need, we'd need to package that appropriately. We have nothing to gain here, nobody pays for that.
- u801e 4y ago
  Once you package a dependency, updating to a new version requires minor changes unless it's a major version change. What you do gain is the ability to easily upgrade and downgrade a particular dependency and verify the integrity of the installed files (something that pip, for example, doesn't provide as far as I'm aware, but the OS package manager does).
  - groestl 4y ago
    This is just a crazy amount of work, given the alternative is updating your whatever lock file and let the transitive dependency resolution of your language of choice do the rest. Note that I very much like proper clean .debs as an end user, and if that's my customer base I'd publish like that as well. But if I'm last in the chain and my customers are intern, I'd never ever in a million years take the route you propose.

by u801e 4y ago

groestl 4y ago

For every dependency that's missing from the upstream distribution in the exact version we need, we'd need to package that appropriately. We have nothing to gain here, nobody pays for that.

u801e 4y ago
Once you package a dependency, updating to a new version requires minor changes unless it's a major version change. What you do gain is the ability to easily upgrade and downgrade a particular dependency and verify the integrity of the installed files (something that pip, for example, doesn't provide as far as I'm aware, but the OS package manager does).
- groestl 4y ago
  This is just a crazy amount of work, given the alternative is updating your whatever lock file and let the transitive dependency resolution of your language of choice do the rest. Note that I very much like proper clean .debs as an end user, and if that's my customer base I'd publish like that as well. But if I'm last in the chain and my customers are intern, I'd never ever in a million years take the route you propose.