Open Stack

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200623/70840292/attachment.sig>