package manager


 

We've gone a long time without a package manager. There's a giant issue for it but no one has ever picked up work on it. I'd like to suggest that we take Joe's pony-stable and make it an official ponylang project and make it the official package manager for Pony. 

It can be replaced later but it gives us something that works well for basic cases and could be built upon.

-Sean-


 

I think pony-stable is a good place to start. We can then experiment with ideas around adding metadata for dependency versions, checksums and other tidbits.



 

I'd love to work on a more full-featured package manager, and I still intend to.

But before I can do that, I want to have at least the beginnings of a
pony-compiler-in-pony, so that the package manager could be built on
those same tools and understand pony source, or even act as a "plugin"
of the compiler.

But before I can do that, I have to finish fixing some compiler
performance issues I've been running into with the
pony-compiler-in-pony project so far that have made working on it
rather unbearable.

But before I can do that, etc...

You see how it goes; the yak is always hairy, as they say.

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Carl Quinn <carl.quinn@gmail.com> wrote:
I think pony-stable is a good place to start. We can then experiment with
ideas around adding metadata for dependency versions, checksums and other
tidbits.



 

Trailed off and forgot to finish making my point:

Yes, I think it would be acceptable to make `pony-stable` an official
project in some capacity, though I'd still like to position it as a
temporary measure rather than a permanent solution.

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Joe McIlvain <joe.eli.mac@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd love to work on a more full-featured package manager, and I still intend to.

But before I can do that, I want to have at least the beginnings of a
pony-compiler-in-pony, so that the package manager could be built on
those same tools and understand pony source, or even act as a "plugin"
of the compiler.

But before I can do that, I have to finish fixing some compiler
performance issues I've been running into with the
pony-compiler-in-pony project so far that have made working on it
rather unbearable.

But before I can do that, etc...

You see how it goes; the yak is always hairy, as they say.


On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Carl Quinn <carl.quinn@gmail.com> wrote:
I think pony-stable is a good place to start. We can then experiment with
ideas around adding metadata for dependency versions, checksums and other
tidbits.



 

I think "temporary" or "what we have now" is quite reasonable.

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Joe McIlvain <joe.eli.mac@...> wrote:
Trailed off and forgot to finish making my point:

Yes, I think it would be acceptable to make `pony-stable` an official
project in some capacity, though I'd still like to position it as a
temporary measure rather than a permanent solution.

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Joe McIlvain <joe.eli.mac@...> wrote:
> I'd love to work on a more full-featured package manager, and I still intend to.
>
> But before I can do that, I want to have at least the beginnings of a
> pony-compiler-in-pony, so that the package manager could be built on
> those same tools and understand pony source, or even act as a "plugin"
> of the compiler.
>
> But before I can do that, I have to finish fixing some compiler
> performance issues I've been running into with the
> pony-compiler-in-pony project so far that have made working on it
> rather unbearable.
>
> But before I can do that, etc...
>
> You see how it goes; the yak is always hairy, as they say.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Carl Quinn <carl.quinn@...> wrote:
>> I think pony-stable is a good place to start. We can then experiment with
>> ideas around adding metadata for dependency versions, checksums and other
>> tidbits.
>>
>>
>>





Andrew Turley
 

The yak is indeed covered with hair. But hey, this gets us somewhere. I'm in favor of doing it for now.

andy

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Sean T. Allen <sean@...> wrote:
I think "temporary" or "what we have now" is quite reasonable.

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Joe McIlvain <joe.eli.mac@...> wrote:
Trailed off and forgot to finish making my point:

Yes, I think it would be acceptable to make `pony-stable` an official
project in some capacity, though I'd still like to position it as a
temporary measure rather than a permanent solution.

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Joe McIlvain <joe.eli.mac@...> wrote:
> I'd love to work on a more full-featured package manager, and I still intend to.
>
> But before I can do that, I want to have at least the beginnings of a
> pony-compiler-in-pony, so that the package manager could be built on
> those same tools and understand pony source, or even act as a "plugin"
> of the compiler.
>
> But before I can do that, I have to finish fixing some compiler
> performance issues I've been running into with the
> pony-compiler-in-pony project so far that have made working on it
> rather unbearable.
>
> But before I can do that, etc...
>
> You see how it goes; the yak is always hairy, as they say.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Carl Quinn <carl.quinn@...> wrote:
>> I think pony-stable is a good place to start. We can then experiment with
>> ideas around adding metadata for dependency versions, checksums and other
>> tidbits.
>>
>>
>>