3 ms·

Do people try to avoid using package managers? Why? On my system I regularly use homebrew and opam but also have occasional need for pip, cabal and more recentl

by amirmc 13y ago

Do people try to avoid using package managers? Why? On my system I regularly use homebrew and opam but also have occasional need for pip, cabal and more recently npm. Not everything is packaged upstream (nor would I expect it to be). I can't imagine how the OCaml ecosystem worked before opam as it's rapidly become a fundamental tool.

p4bl0 13y ago
I don't know, my instinct tells me that I should avoid having many independent package managers in order to keep everything in the same place and avoid conflicts. But I don't really have any reasons to think that those are better ways to do things.
- avsm 13y ago
  That's a pretty reasonable thing to want. One area where we'd like to improve OPAM is to output Debian and RPM spec files. This requires some surgery in various build systems, but would make upstreaming binary packages and releases so much easier...
- tommorris 13y ago
  My instinct agrees with you, but for one small matter. Ubuntu only just started packaging Ruby 1.9.3 - a version that came out years ago and which is to be deprecated next year - in the latest version. I don't know about OCaml but trying to do Ruby or Python development without using pip or gems (not to mention virtualenvs or RVM gemsets etc.) seems like an exercise in futility and perpetual brokenness. I'd like it if system package managers could actually keep up with the needs of developers, but they seem to have failed. Until they can get their shit together, we now have the irritation of managing all these many, many language-specific package managers rather than just using apt-get like sane people. If the system level package manager were able to talk to the language level package managers, that'd be a big improvement. The number of times I've typed `sudo gem install nokogiri` and then had to fumble around and work out exactly which variant of libxml-dev-0 or whatever is needed before I can install a RubyGem with a native dependency shows we've got some brokenness that needs fixing.
  - silentOpen 13y ago
    Conveniently, opam uses the same upgrade description format as apt < http://www.mancoosi.org/cudf/ http://www.mancoosi.org/cudf/ > which should make integration achievable.
  - technomancy 13y ago
    > I'd like it if system package managers could actually keep up with the needs of developers, but they seem to have failed. I would argue that they fail at this because it's a goal that's in direct conflict with their primary goal: to serve end users. The needs of developers are dramatically different. Having multiple versions of a package is a must for developers, but would just cause weird unpredictable issues for end users. (Unless you are very clever and do something like Nix, of course.) I wrote more about this topic here: http://technomancy.us/151 http://technomancy.us/151
- judk 13y ago
  OS package managerd can't keep up with programming language packages. Use the Langauge community's package manager.

by amirmc 13y ago

p4bl0 13y ago

I don't know, my instinct tells me that I should avoid having many independent package managers in order to keep everything in the same place and avoid conflicts. But I don't really have any reasons to think that those are better ways to do things.

avsm 13y ago
That's a pretty reasonable thing to want. One area where we'd like to improve OPAM is to output Debian and RPM spec files. This requires some surgery in various build systems, but would make upstreaming binary packages and releases so much easier...
tommorris 13y ago
My instinct agrees with you, but for one small matter. Ubuntu only just started packaging Ruby 1.9.3 - a version that came out years ago and which is to be deprecated next year - in the latest version. I don't know about OCaml but trying to do Ruby or Python development without using pip or gems (not to mention virtualenvs or RVM gemsets etc.) seems like an exercise in futility and perpetual brokenness. I'd like it if system package managers could actually keep up with the needs of developers, but they seem to have failed. Until they can get their shit together, we now have the irritation of managing all these many, many language-specific package managers rather than just using apt-get like sane people. If the system level package manager were able to talk to the language level package managers, that'd be a big improvement. The number of times I've typed `sudo gem install nokogiri` and then had to fumble around and work out exactly which variant of libxml-dev-0 or whatever is needed before I can install a RubyGem with a native dependency shows we've got some brokenness that needs fixing.
- silentOpen 13y ago
  Conveniently, opam uses the same upgrade description format as apt < http://www.mancoosi.org/cudf/ http://www.mancoosi.org/cudf/ > which should make integration achievable.
- technomancy 13y ago
  > I'd like it if system package managers could actually keep up with the needs of developers, but they seem to have failed. I would argue that they fail at this because it's a goal that's in direct conflict with their primary goal: to serve end users. The needs of developers are dramatically different. Having multiple versions of a package is a must for developers, but would just cause weird unpredictable issues for end users. (Unless you are very clever and do something like Nix, of course.) I wrote more about this topic here: http://technomancy.us/151 http://technomancy.us/151
judk 13y ago
OS package managerd can't keep up with programming language packages. Use the Langauge community's package manager.