Practically speaking, are these essentially synonymous? Or is there something I'm missing? I've use Composer (PHP), CocoaPods (Objective-C), and Bundler (Rails). I believe they describe themselves as dependency managers but can they also be consider as package mangers?
I'd say yes. Given that the javascript community calls their version of those tools (NPM and bower) "package managers", I think that the development community has essentially synonymized those terms.
EDIT I'm going to backtrack a bit. In general, I think the term package manager has to do with the delivery and installation of third party code. That said, npm is correctly named the node package manager. As I see it, a dependency manager is a different thing. It's an runtime orchestration tool. For example, there are dependency managers that simply run in the browser to load asset files in the proper order (think requireJS, browserify, cartero, etc... - or think a Dependency Injection container in say Symfony2 or Laravel) but you wouldn't call those package managers. A package manager would be something like Debian's dpkg or the node community's bower, which actually downloads third party libraries for you (that aren't currently in your software suite). Now, I think the burred lines come in when package managers decided to be smart enough to resolve version numbers for us. Because tools like npm make sure that each piece of software we declare has all of the proper versions of it's dependencies (by downloading a chain of dependencies for us), we want to call it a dependency manager. But I think it's more proper to say that it's a package manager that happens to do version resolution. It's really more of a delivery mechanism than a runtime tool, though.
All that to say, I'd like to hear what others have to say about this.
No, they are not synonyms. Look At that answer for their difference
https://stackoverflow.com/a/27290095/4016254
Related
I understand that packages hold several modules, but I'm starting to get confused as to if packages and modules are dependencies. Also, libraries to me maybe seem like packages you install via NPM, Nuget, RubyGems, Bower, Homebrew, or Chocolatey. So are libraries packages? Dependencies are something you need to load within your application, to have a certain functionality, but aren't some libraries(jQuery) seen as a dependency? So yea, what are the differences between these concepts?
Libraries are just a bunch of code anyone can use. For example, React.js is a JavaScript library for building front end components.
If I decide to use this library in my app, then React will become one of the modules (aka an installed instance of the library) that my app depends on. So dependencies are pretty much all of the libraries your app depends on, in order to run the way you expect it to run.
I asked the same question you did about dependencies, and I learned that it's a matter of understanding how these terms relate to one another rather than finding isolated definitions for each of them.
Hope this helps!
Basically a package is a pack with some features which fullfills some functionality of your app.
Once you install any package using npm then the package is installed as a dependency in your app inside your package.json file along with its modules(aka libraries consist of classes) stored inside node_modules folder.
I hope its clear now.
Is there a way to install meteor packages globally?
So, having the once globally installed packages installable without internet connection for projects created later, avoid repetitive downloading, and other benefits one may imagine.
Like in Node.js, using npm command (of Node Package Manager) with -g flag, npm install -g, doing so npm installs node packages into a global directory and when wanted to be loaded from javascript programs, loading from there if available, as well as looking in and loading packages from project's node modules folder.
Meteor already downloads packages into a global repository that all your local apps benefit off of.
So if you meteor add iron:router#1.0.7 it is downloaded and added to your project. Next time another project requires the same version, it is used off that same spot.
Also, there is a PACKAGES_DIR environment variable, when set, allows you to keep your own local packages centrally, so that you can share them among projects. In fact, you can keep that on a network drive (NFS) which your whole team can mount and consume centrally.
Yet, there is an inherent problem. Meteor's version resolver looks up for updates unless you pin down your package dependency versions so that is exactly why meteor seems to be so desperate to be connected.
Even if you pin your dependencies, the packages you depend on may not have (which apparently is the case for most packages) so Meteor keeps looking for updates to the whole package tree and downloads those that it deems satisfying the version constraint resolver.
The good news is, they are constantly improving their tooling, requiring lower number of lookups, faster builds, better search etc.
All in all, in essence, there is not much you can do unless Meteor provides some way of hosting an entire mirror of its package repository for you to consume offline. And I guess it is very unlikely to happen.
Meteor is a tool for the connected world and it does assume your connectivity. Heck, the whole journey begins with a curl https://install.meteor.com/ | sh
And yes, it would be great if we could hack away on a remote beach, or the 12 hour flight to that beach.
Until then, happy coding online ;)
I am looking for a good way to install an application I developed with all its dependencies in a fancy way. Currently I have a big make file that downloads, unpacks, compiles and installs all dependencies. This however is a little tedious, since there are quite a few dependencies and the make file is getting larger and larger which eventually will be hard to maintain. Therefore I am looking for a packaging tool with the following features:
It should be a light weight package manager which is very easy to install (or even installs itself and afterwards all my dependencies)
The destination of the installed binaries, libraries etc. should be customizable
Each installation process of a dependency should be easy configurable
It should be possible to include self written scripts that get executed at a specific point during the installation process (in order to manipulate make files, flags etc)
No admin rights should be necessary since all clients that install my application will not have admin rights and are not able to use an already installed package manager
I do not know if this kind of software exists. I myself don't have much of experience with packaging tools.
Thx in advance for any link, hint, suggestion!
opkg is something thats based on ipkg (now defunct) and originally dpkg. Its used in embedded systems. Light weight for sure.
ports from crux linux (www.crux.nu)?
A quick search returns InstallJammer. I would propose make debs and rpms and tarballs and stick with standard installation process (root privileges and such)m but if you can't do that, then, well, you can't.
I'm sure you know how suspicious it would look for the user.
I'm developing an application using Python 3. What is the best practice to use third party libraries for development process and end-user distribution? Note that I'm working within these constraints:
Developers in the team should have the exact same version of the libraries.
An ideal solution would work on both Windows and Linux.
I would like to avoid making the user install software before using our own; that is, they shouldn't have to install product A and product B before using ours.
You could use setuptools to create egg files for your libraries, assuming they aren't available in egg form already. You could then bundle the eggs alongside your software, which would need to either install them, or ensure that they were on the import path.
This has some complexities, i.e. if your libraries have C-extensions, then your eggs become platform-specific, but in my experience this is the most widely-accepted means of 'bundling' stuff in Python.
I have to say that this remains one of Python's weaknesses, though; the third-party ecosystem is certainly aimed at developers rather than end-users.
There are no best practices, but there are a few different tracks people follow. With regard to commercial product distribution there are the following:
Manage Your Own Package Server
With regard to your development process, it is typical to either have your dev boxes update from a local package server. That allows you to "freeze" the dependency list (i.e. just stop getting upstream updates) so that everyone is on the same version. You can update at particular times and have the developers update as well, keeping everyone in lockstep.
For customer installs you usually write an install script. You can collect all the packages and install your libs, as well as the other at the same time. There can be issues with trying to install a new Python, or even any standard library because the customer may already depend on a different version. Usually you can install in a sandbox to separate your packages from the systems packages. This is more of a problem on Linux than Windows.
Toolchain
The other option is to create a toolchain for each supported OS. A toolchain is all the dependencies (up to, but not including base OS libs like glibc). This toolchain gets packaged up and distributed for both developers AND customers. Best practice for a toolchain is:
change the executable to prevent confusion. (ie. python -> pkg_python)
don't install in .../bin directories to prevent accidental usage. (ie. on Linux you can install under .../libexec. /opt is also used although personally I detest it.)
install your libs in the correct location under lib/python/site-packages so you don't have to use PYTHONPATH.
Distribute the source .py files for the executables so the install script can relocate them appropriately.
The package format should be an OS native package (RedHat -> RPM, Debian -> DEB, Win -> MSI)
For developers use PIP with requirements file.
For end users, specify requirements in setup.py.
I would like to know the difference between the 2 methods in terms of how dependencies are handled, ease of use and configurability.
If you install from source, you lose ease of use (you have to follow a procedure yourself instead of clicking a button to install) and you have to resolve your own dependencies in many cases, whereas a package manager would do this for you in most cases. However, you gain a lot of configurability (pick and choose versions, where to install, even modify source).
Also, there's a lot of stuff out there that you can only get if you install from source, because packages haven't been made (or kept up to date), especially if you use one of the less popular package managers.
What about building software from source with the help of a package manager? Think gentoo's emerge. You see, the two choices you present are not necessarily mutually exclusive alternatives.