On Saturday, 2 September 2017 11:03:59 Romain Tartière wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 09:41:43PM +0200, David Naylor wrote: > > [2] A general discussion needs to be had around nuget packages. How do we > > consume them? > > > > i) as downloads with each port containing a copy > > > > ii) local ports with consistency across the Ports Collections > > > > iii) A mixture of the above (i.e. (ii) is there is a native component, > > otherwise (i)) > > I prefer (ii) as I think it gives the end user the best leverage to patch > > issues with nuget packages locally (and to get updates without waiting on > > a) upstream, and b) us/ports maintainer). However, at this point that > > option is at 0% progress. > > Yeah, it's a problem that is broader and broader… and for which I don't > think a universal solution works :-/
At a minimum, any nuget package that contains a native (i.e. compiled) portion needs to be a Port. > With local copies (i) you end-up with a lot of duplication (Go > applications are a good example of how this can become quite stupid, I > recently created a port for a go application, the source tarball > includes the source of all dependencies, and everything is bundled in a > 13MB executable (that only depends on libc.so and libthr.so). > > With a port per dependency (ii), you sooner or later have to handle > conflicts between dependencies (port A needs foo-1.0.0 but port B needs > foo-2.0.0) and it can get tricky. I think we can already handle that (see all the Qt ports). I'm not sure what currently happens when A depends on B and C but B and C depend on different versions of D. Does .NET just use the latest version of D? > I only have experience with programming with Ruby as a language that has > similar problem. I ended at only installing system tools using the > FreeBSD ports (e.g. puppet, vagrant, passenger), and for applications I > actually use, I just grab the source, and use bundler to gather all > dependencies as the user running the software, therefore I end up having > something similar to (i) without using the port system. > > My weak Windows development experience learned me to put all dll of an > application in the application directory. If it's still a good advice, > I guess that each application should have it's copy of all it's > dependencies, and therefore each port should install a bundle of all > what is required by it. In my ideal situation all dlls will be installed in the GAC (or just linked to where they are installed). If I read this [1] correctly, Debian advocates for all dlls to be registered in the GAC. > Another problem with nugets packages is that you only get binaries, > right? That means that is something goes really wrong, there is no way > to audit the source code of what led to disaster. The problem is > similar with the few Java projects I gave a look at. My feeling is that > this is even worst :-( Ruby being interpreted, there is no such > problems. > > I am not enough involved in Java nor .Net to think about mitigations of > this issue. This is my primary concern, how does one take control when each port manages its own private dependencies. [1] https://pkg-mono.alioth.debian.org/cli-policy/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
