←back to thread

A critique of package managers

(www.gingerbill.org)
109 points gingerBill | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
karmakaze ◴[] No.45168512[source]
The post goes on to say that random packages are not necessarily better than what members of your team could make. At the end it gets to:

> Through manual dependency management. Regardless of the language, it is a very good idea that you know what you are depending on in your project. Copying and vendoring each package manually, and fixing the specific versions down is the most practical approach to keeping a code-base stable, reliable, and maintainable. Automated systems such as generic package managers hide the complexity and complications in a project which are much better not hidden away.

So that makes all of us human package managers. It's also true that you can get a package manager from internet folk that works better than the processes and utilities your team cobbles together to ease the burden.

replies(1): >>45168664 #
1. gingerBill ◴[] No.45168664[source]
Yes. That's the entire point, but it should not be automated which is my point.