On തിങ്കള് 12 ഡിസംബര് 2016 10:03 വൈകു, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:38:47PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> 1. When handling fragile languages (javascript, ruby, go and possibly >> more), > > I think that this view of "fragile languages" is very misleading, and > perhaps a little dangerous. There are no fragile languages, but fragile > projects. You can write a fragile project in any language you want.
Agreed. I should have used culture instead of languages. Languages with communities/culture that encourage people to lock to a specific patch release versions of dependency instead of encouraging backward compatibility for updates/stable libraries with stable interfaces. Or dealing with projects that don't follow practices like SemVer. > Also, that fragility is mostly only perceived on the Debian side, > because those upstream communities have mechanisms for locking their > dependencies to specific versions, having multiple versions of the same > package loaded at the same time, etc. We in Debian *choose* that those > practices should not be followed, and *decided on our own* to package > their stuff. It is then on *our burden* to handle the so-called > fragility. Yes, that is why I ask for more care when dealing with such language cultures.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
