3 ms·
Where to draw the line is fuzzy and probably subjective, but to me it seems natural for "system" packages to be updated and managed entirely separately from use
by jwells89 3y ago
Where to draw the line is fuzzy and probably subjective, but to me it seems natural for "system" packages to be updated and managed entirely separately from user-installed packages of all kinds (not just things that get wrapped in flatpaks or shipped with their jungles in Docker), even if that means dependency redundancy. I think for most people trading off some storage for assurance that user packages can never ever influence or worse, break the environment would be worth it.
- ripley12 3y agoThat makes a lot of sense to me. I find it useful to keep the two separate; I think most of my confusion stems from people trying hard to use 1 tool to do both.
- ElevenLathe 3y agoIMO two tools is reasonable -- something like homebrew or guix plus the system package manager. The frustration sets in when you realize you actually use a dozen: pip, npm, go get, Docker (which has the same problem again, fractally), homebrew, tfenv, gem, rvm, the list goes on. If you are in an environment where there is even cursory review of your dependencies, it can become a nightmare. This is the origin of (also nightmarish) inflexible corporate policies like "we are a CentOS shop: don't use anything that isn't in those repos without a months-long review and sign off from the VP of infosec."