4 ms·

> AUR stands for "Arch User Repository". It's not the official system repository. Okay... and? The point being made was that the issue of package managers rema

> AUR stands for "Arch User Repository". It's not the official system repository. Okay... and? The point being made was that the issue of package managers remains: do you really think users are auditing all those "lib<slam-head-on-keyboard>" dependencies that they're forced to install? Whether they install those dependencies from the official repository or from homebrew, or nix, or AUR, or whatever, is immaterial, the developer washed their hands of this, instead leaving it to the user who in all likelihood knows significantly less than the developers to be able to make an informed decision, so they YOLO it. Third-party repositories would not exist if they had no utility. But this is why Debian is so revered: they understand this dynamic and so maintain repositories that can be trusted. Whereas the solution C/C++ cultists seem to implicitly prefer is having no repositories because dependencies are, at best, a slippery slope. > "It's too hard to add a dependency in C++" It's not hard to add a dependency. I actually prefer the dependencies-as-git-submodules approach to package managers: it's explicit and you know what you're getting and from where. But using those dependencies is a different story altogether. Don't you just love it when one or more of your dependencies has a completely different build system to the others? So now you have to start building dependencies independently, whose artefacts are in different places, etc, etc, this shouldn't be a problem. > I, for one, do not love it when there is an exploit in a language package manager. Oh please, I believe that about as much as ambulance chasers saying they don't love medical emergencies. Otherwise, why are any and all comments begging for a first-party package manager immediately swamped with strawmans about npm as if anyone is actually asking for that, instead of, say, what Zig or Go has? It's because of the cultism, and every npm exploit further entrenches it.

pclmulqdq 1y ago
C++ usage has nothing to do with static/dynamic linking. One is a language and the other is a way of using libraries. Dynamic linking gives you small binaries with a lot of cross-compatibility, and static linking gives you big binaries with known function. Most production C++ out there follows the same pattern as Rust and Go and uses static linking (where do you think Rust and Go got that pattern from?). Python is a weird language that has tons of dynamic linking while also having a big package manager, which is why pip is hell to use and PyTorch is infamously hard to install. Dynamic linking shifts responsibility for the linked libraries over to the user and their OS, and if it's an Arch user using AUR they are likely very interested in assuming that risk for themselves. 99.9% of Linux users are using Debian or Ubuntu with apt for all these libs, and those maintainers do pay a lot of attention to libraries.
palata 1y ago
> But this is why Debian is so revered: they understand this dynamic and so maintain repositories that can be trusted. So you do understand my point about AUR. AUR is like adding a third-party repo to your Debian configuration. So it's not a good example if you want to talk about official repositories. Debian is a good example (it's not the only distribution that has that concept), which proves my point and not yours: this is better than unchecked repositories in terms of security. > Whereas the solution C/C++ cultists seem to implicitly prefer is having no repositories because dependencies are, at best, a slippery slope. Nobody says that ever. Either you make up your cult just to win an argument, or you don't understand what C/C++ people say. The whole goddamn point is to have a trusted system repository, and if you need to pull something that is not there, then you do it properly. Which is better than pulling random stuff from random repositories, again. > I actually prefer the dependencies-as-git-submodules approach Oh right. So you do it wrong, it's good to know and it will answer your next complaint: > Don't you just love it when one or more of your dependencies has a completely different build system to the others I don't give a damn because I handle dependencies properly (not as git submodules). I don't have a single project where the dependencies all use the same build system. It's just not a problem at all, because I do it properly. What do I do then? Well exactly the same as what your system package manager does. > this shouldn't be a problem. I agree with you. Call it a footgun if you wish, you are the one pulling the trigger. It isn't a problem for me. > why are any and all comments begging for a first-party package manager immediately swamped with strawmans about npm Where did I do that? > It's because of the cultism, and every npm exploit further entrenches it. It's because npm is a good example of what happens when it goes out of control. Pip has the same problem, and Rust as well. But npm seems to be the worse, I guess because it's used by more people?
- Defletter 1y ago
  Your defensiveness is completely hindering you and I cannot be bothered with that so here are some much needed clarifications: > I am not a C/C++ cultist at all, and I actually don't like C++ (the language) so much (I've worked with it for years). I, for one, do not love it when there is an exploit in a language package manager. If you do neither of those things then did it ever occur to you that this might not be about YOU? > I find it ironic that when I explain that my problem is that I want to be able to audit (and maintain, if necessary) my dependencies, the answer that comes suggests that I am incompetent and "inexpertly" doing my job. Yeah, hi, no you didn't explain that. You're probably mistaking me for someone else in some other conversation you had. The only comment of yours prior to mine in the thread is you saying "I can use pkg-config just fine." And again, you're thinking that I'm calling YOU incompetent, or even that I'm calling you incompetent. But okay, I'm sure your code never has bugs, never has memory issues, is never poorly designed or untested, that you can whip out an OpenGL alternative whatever in no time and it be just as stable and battle-tested, and to say otherwise must be calling you incompetent. That makes total sense. > AUR stands for "Arch User Repository". It's not the official system repository. > So it's not a good example if you want to talk about official repositories. I said system package, not official repository. I don't know why you keep insisting on countering an argument I did not make. Yes, system packages can be installed from unofficial repositories. I don't know how I could've made this clearer. -- Overall, getting bored of this, though the part where you harp on about doing dependencies properly compared to me and not elaborating one bit is very funny. Have a nice day.

pclmulqdq 1y ago

C++ usage has nothing to do with static/dynamic linking. One is a language and the other is a way of using libraries. Dynamic linking gives you small binaries with a lot of cross-compatibility, and static linking gives you big binaries with known function. Most production C++ out there follows the same pattern as Rust and Go and uses static linking (where do you think Rust and Go got that pattern from?). Python is a weird language that has tons of dynamic linking while also having a big package manager, which is why pip is hell to use and PyTorch is infamously hard to install. Dynamic linking shifts responsibility for the linked libraries over to the user and their OS, and if it's an Arch user using AUR they are likely very interested in assuming that risk for themselves. 99.9% of Linux users are using Debian or Ubuntu with apt for all these libs, and those maintainers do pay a lot of attention to libraries.

palata 1y ago

> But this is why Debian is so revered: they understand this dynamic and so maintain repositories that can be trusted. So you do understand my point about AUR. AUR is like adding a third-party repo to your Debian configuration. So it's not a good example if you want to talk about official repositories. Debian is a good example (it's not the only distribution that has that concept), which proves my point and not yours: this is better than unchecked repositories in terms of security. > Whereas the solution C/C++ cultists seem to implicitly prefer is having no repositories because dependencies are, at best, a slippery slope. Nobody says that ever. Either you make up your cult just to win an argument, or you don't understand what C/C++ people say. The whole goddamn point is to have a trusted system repository, and if you need to pull something that is not there, then you do it properly. Which is better than pulling random stuff from random repositories, again. > I actually prefer the dependencies-as-git-submodules approach Oh right. So you do it wrong, it's good to know and it will answer your next complaint: > Don't you just love it when one or more of your dependencies has a completely different build system to the others I don't give a damn because I handle dependencies properly (not as git submodules). I don't have a single project where the dependencies all use the same build system. It's just not a problem at all, because I do it properly. What do I do then? Well exactly the same as what your system package manager does. > this shouldn't be a problem. I agree with you. Call it a footgun if you wish, you are the one pulling the trigger. It isn't a problem for me. > why are any and all comments begging for a first-party package manager immediately swamped with strawmans about npm Where did I do that? > It's because of the cultism, and every npm exploit further entrenches it. It's because npm is a good example of what happens when it goes out of control. Pip has the same problem, and Rust as well. But npm seems to be the worse, I guess because it's used by more people?

Defletter 1y ago
Your defensiveness is completely hindering you and I cannot be bothered with that so here are some much needed clarifications: > I am not a C/C++ cultist at all, and I actually don't like C++ (the language) so much (I've worked with it for years). I, for one, do not love it when there is an exploit in a language package manager. If you do neither of those things then did it ever occur to you that this might not be about YOU? > I find it ironic that when I explain that my problem is that I want to be able to audit (and maintain, if necessary) my dependencies, the answer that comes suggests that I am incompetent and "inexpertly" doing my job. Yeah, hi, no you didn't explain that. You're probably mistaking me for someone else in some other conversation you had. The only comment of yours prior to mine in the thread is you saying "I can use pkg-config just fine." And again, you're thinking that I'm calling YOU incompetent, or even that I'm calling you incompetent. But okay, I'm sure your code never has bugs, never has memory issues, is never poorly designed or untested, that you can whip out an OpenGL alternative whatever in no time and it be just as stable and battle-tested, and to say otherwise must be calling you incompetent. That makes total sense. > AUR stands for "Arch User Repository". It's not the official system repository. > So it's not a good example if you want to talk about official repositories. I said system package, not official repository. I don't know why you keep insisting on countering an argument I did not make. Yes, system packages can be installed from unofficial repositories. I don't know how I could've made this clearer. -- Overall, getting bored of this, though the part where you harp on about doing dependencies properly compared to me and not elaborating one bit is very funny. Have a nice day.