On 2012-05-24 12:02, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

> Huh, it does? I've always found those tools ridiculously easy and great
> to work with.

I've also found those very easy to use.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

> Also, for
> switching versions all you have to do is change on variable.  I'm sure
> there are things like this for other systems but I use arch and I see a
> solution to your problem.

I'm using arch, too. The problem are the people, who don't :-)

In the end, it should be possible to "just get & compile" a project with a package manager, regardless of which platform you use and which versions your platform package manager ships. If I have a good workaround in Arch but my colleague needs a different in Debian, it's already a failure.

On May 24, 2012 7:03 AM, "Jacob Carlborg" <doob@me.com> wrote:
>
> Mac OS X doesn't have one out of the box, App Store doesn't count.
>
> --
> /Jacob Carlborg

IIRC there is one that a ton of people use, is it called macports?

On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 10:50:57 UTC, Kevin Cox wrote:
> On May 24, 2012 6:43 AM, "Tobias Pankrath" <tobias@pankrath.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 09:50:33 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 10:34 +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Every time I need to do something in an language without official
> package manager support, I curse myself.
>>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand Debian, Fedora, FreeBSD, MacOSX, etc. already have
>>> package managements systems. A problem is that Windows does not.
>>>
>>> Experience shows (Maven, Gems, Hackage, ...) that having language
>>> specific packaging and platform specific packaging causes strife.
>>
>>
>>
>> Platform specific package management is not enough for development use.
> It only works, if you need the version the platform provides. And everyone
> must have the same platform to have the same version.
>>
>
> Yes and no, for actually using programs that use the language the system
> package manager is far superior because when you install an app it can also
> install the required packages in one go. (As opposed to having to go to the
> d package manager and get the right libs.  However you bring up the point
> of development.  If you look at the arch build system it has what you
> want.  You can write descriptions on how to download and build a package
> and then is it just as easy to install as a dget would be, however thee
> advantage is that you can still depend on these packages.  Also, for
> switching versions all you have to do is change on variable.  I'm sure
> there are things like this for other systems but I use arch and I see a
> solution to your problem.

When I worked at CERN, our team was making use of CMT for C++.

This is a Python+CVS build tool that is nicely integrated with source
code repository and also takes care of dependencies and versioning.

I never heard about it outside CERN.

Some information in case you want to read about it,
http://www.cmtsite.org/CMTDoc.html
http://lhcb-comp.web.cern.ch/lhcb-comp/support/CMT/cmt.htm

--
Paulo

On May 24, 2012 7:08 AM, "Tobias Pankrath" <tobias@pankrath.net> wrote:
>
> I'm using arch, too. The problem are the people, who don't :-)

I know what you are saying but package managers were beautiful things that made it stupidly simple to install software.  But we are slowly going back to windoze with "install this, run this command, you may need to configure your repositories, sorry dependency not installed"

I understand that it is more work to have multiple solutions but I think it is worth it.

And IIRC the abs is portable so worst case is go and install it.  (Easy for
me on arch to say).

On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 09:53:38 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 10:29 +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> [...]
>> 
>> "Go get" still has an issue with version dependencies, as it
>> gets latest.
>
> I wasn't trying to say it was perfect, apologies if that impression came
> across. I was trying to say that there was a model of source code
> organization for core+packages that as been tried and appears to be
> successful to an extent better than anything seen in C, C++, Fortran,
> etc. Python, Ruby, Java (and hence Groovy and to a lesser extent Scala)
> are going a slightly different route, but are definitely ahead as well.

Sure, I am also confident that this issue will eventually get fixed.

Get latest only works if you have full control over all libraries, latest
when Go gets more industry coverage, where this control is not so easy as in open source world, this problem will be solved.

--
Paulo

On 5/24/12 6:08 PM, Kevin Cox wrote:
>
> On May 24, 2012 7:03 AM, "Jacob Carlborg" <doob@me.com
> <mailto:doob@me.com>> wrote:
>  >
>  > Mac OS X doesn't have one out of the box, App Store doesn't count.
>  >
>  > --
>  > /Jacob Carlborg
>
> IIRC there is one that a ton of people use, is it called macports?

That, bust mostly homebrew:

https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew

(but it's more for developers)

On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:50:15 +0100, Russel Winder <russel@winder.org.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 10:34 +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> [...]
>> Every time I need to do something in an language without official
>> package manager support, I curse myself.
>
> On the other hand Debian, Fedora, FreeBSD, MacOSX, etc. already have
> package managements systems. A problem is that Windows does not.
>
> Experience shows (Maven, Gems, Hackage, ...) that having language
> specific packaging and platform specific packaging causes strife.

Odd.. a language specific package support would mean /one/ set of steps/documentation/etc for telling new users how to do it, instead of a vague "check your platform documentation" or similar.  Plus, having language specific tools means complete control of how it works, and what it does, etc.. rather than having to work around someone else's design decisions.

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On 2012-05-24 13:30, Regan Heath wrote:

> Odd.. a language specific package support would mean /one/ set of
> steps/documentation/etc for telling new users how to do it, instead of a
> vague "check your platform documentation" or similar. Plus, having
> language specific tools means complete control of how it works, and what
> it does, etc.. rather than having to work around someone else's design
> decisions.

Exactly.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2012-05-24 13:08, Kevin Cox wrote:
>
> On May 24, 2012 7:03 AM, "Jacob Carlborg" <doob@me.com
> <mailto:doob@me.com>> wrote:
>  >
>  > Mac OS X doesn't have one out of the box, App Store doesn't count.
>  >
>  > --
>  > /Jacob Carlborg
>
> IIRC there is one that a ton of people use, is it called macports?
>

Yes, but there are also package managers for Windows.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg