Hi Alex,

Am 25.12.21 um 20:41 schrieb Alexander Kanavin:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 at 20:32, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier <ste...@herbrechtsmeier.net <mailto:ste...@herbrechtsmeier.net>> wrote:

     > I'm not sure how to deal with that, so there aren't that many
    options here.

    This is a common problem for all language specific package managers
    (python / pip, Node.js / npm, Rust / Carge, go) and we need a common
    solution.


I tend to think that the best (and the hardest) option is to improve these tools so that they're usable inside do_fetch (e.g. fulfil the caching/reproducibility criteria for a bitbake fetcher), and the needed changes are acceptable to upstreams.

Is the fetcher really the problem? In all cases the input and output of the package manager fetch task is well defined. In the npm case the bitbake npmsw fetcher and my recipetool approach translate this configuration into bitbake fetch and unpack commands.

The real problem is the different philosophy between OE and the package manager. The package manager doesn't care about duplicate versions, maintenance versions, version updates of indirect dependencies, license compliance, CVE checks or dead code (examples, documentations, test, ...) and if they care every package manager have its own solution.

Why C/C++ and Python doesn't fetch all its dependencies inside a single recipe and why do we try to replace embedded dependencies? I think we have good reasons for it and we shouldn't discard it for other languages.

Independent of the language an update of a dependency need a test inside a user and with Node-RED as an example I show that this is possible for npm modules.

Regards
  Stefan
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#160024): 
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/160024
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/87909311/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub 
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Reply via email to