Hi, zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> skribis:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 12:16, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> However, doing such composition on a per-package basis and as the >> default way of composing packages is inefficient and, more importantly, >> the resulting compositions may not work. A package written for Python 2 >> may not work with Python 3, and so on. > > About inefficiency, I agree. The number of inferiors should be > minimized, IMHO. > > By “the resulting composition may not work”, you mean that what is > propagated may be incompatible, right? For example, bytecode or ABI > incompatibilities. Yes, all sort of incompatibilities could arise. The great thing with having all the package definitions in a single tree is that we know they were tested to work together well (hopefully). If you start composing packages taken from different revisions, you lose that guarantee. Ludo’.
