On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 09:33:48AM -0500, Federico Capoano wrote: > The only thing not convincing to me was Pipfile, my experience with it was > not great (I didn't feel it simplified my work) and I did not adopt it in > my everyday workflow.
We chose pipenv because it sounded like the new standard way of managing dependencies and virtual environment. I guess that's good marketing by Kennetz Reitz :-) In reality, it has its flaws. The dependency resolution is sometimes fragile and it downloads a lot of stuff although it could look it up on PyPi. I don't know if we would choose pipenv again for the next project. Maybe we would just work with requirements files, pip and venv/virtualenv/etc - all the included tools. > Regarding the system dependencies to run all the modules, do you manage > those by hand or have you automated those as well? For the development machines, we didn't automate the installation of those packages. It's mainly the dependencies of openwisp-controller which need to be installed manually once. I'm not sure if we should put such a dev environment into openwisp-utils. It could also be handled as a separate repository so that openwisp-utils doesn't come with stuff some people don't want. And we could maintain the environment independently. Greetings, Oliver -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenWISP" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openwisp/20200415053843.GA19303%40okWS.
