On 2020-06-23 09:25:40 +0900 (+0900), Akihiro Motoki wrote: [...]
Regarding a topic of packaging raised by zigo, I am not sure it is a problem the OpenStack community should solve. I know legacy packagers would like to use single versions of libraries in their contents at the same time so they don't like npm/yarn based JS dependencies. [...]
It's rather insulting to refer to distribution package maintainers as "legacy packagers" implying that distros are somehow outmoded. I'm sure you're a fan of just cramming random source into a container and crossing your fingers, but what non-distro sort of platform do you build and start that container on? Something which doesn't use "legacy packages" I suppose? I think it's perfectly valid to want software which is mature enough to have ABI versioning and generous compatibility ranges for its dependency chain, and which sticks to a minimal set off well-established requirements rather than just grabbing whatever's shiny and new. Traditional Linux distributions and Unix derivatives understandably struggle with the chaos in programming language ecosystems like Javascript and Golang which are still very much in infancy and haven't settled into particularly mature and supportable patterns yet. This sort of fast and loose mentality may be great for prototyping new software, but the constant churn in dependencies and frameworks makes such solutions essentially unsupportable except by their upstream developers. For now you basically get to decide between being technical support for anyone who wants to use your software, or building it with languages and dependencies which can actually be supported by "legacy packagers." -- Jeremy Stanley