On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 09:54:14 -0400 Antonio Cavallo <[email protected]> wrote: > > You know, I wish the scientific communities would stop producing wheels > > and instead encourage users to switch to conda. The wheel paradigm is > > conceptually antiquated and is really a nuisance to package developers > > and maintainers. > > I cannot agree more and it is not only restricted to the scientific > community (I would consider myself working in a hybrid env). > > Maybe we should embrace it. > > We could agree on a common "package" format (bin/lib/include/data) between > pip and conda to begin with (pretty much like rpm based on cpio instead > zip). > While there might disagreements on the tooling around (the build and the > dependency resolver), at least we can pin on single format and the > installer (with bare minimal logic in it).
I'm not sure I understand your proposal here. You mean invent another package format that's not some already existing de-facto standard? Personally, I think it would be more reasonable to encourage conda as a de-facto standard everywhere people cannot use system-provided packages (for example because they are outdated). > Seminal projects in this space are IMHO: > > https://build.opensuse.org/ (or the CD/CI system before it became > "fashionable") > Basically it allows to create a package for each "binary" platform > instead a package that rules them all, automatically (embrace it if you > cannot beat it) > > https://github.com/QuantStack/mamba (it's a step in the right direction > to split the install part from the dependency resolution) > (https://medium.com/@wolfv/making-conda-fast-again-4da4debfb3b7) > > Please let me know if that something interesting I don't know. It's certainly interesting in an abstract, conceptual way. Concretely for Arrow? I'm not sure :-) Perhaps other Arrow core developers will have a more elaborate opinion. Regards Antoine.
