Comment by adev_
3 months ago
> Does this somehow prevent you from vendoring everything?
Yes. Because in these environment soon or later you will be shipping libraries and not executable.
Shipping libraries means that your software will need to be integrated in other stacks where you do not control the full dependency tree nor the versions there.
Vendoring dependencies in this situation is the guarantee that you will make the life of your customer miserable by throwing the diamond dependency problem right in their face.
You're making your customer's life miserable by having dependencies. You're a library, your customer is using you to solve a specific problem. Write the code to solve that and be done with it.
In the game development sphere, there's plenty of giant middleware packages for audio playback, physics engines, renderers, and other problems that are 1000x more complex and more useful than any given npm package, and yet I somehow don't have to "manage a dependency tree" and "resolve peer dependency conflicts" when using them.
When you're a library, your customer is another developer. By vendoring needlessly, you potentially cause unavoidable bloat in someone else's product. If you interoperate with standard interfaces, your downstream should be able to choose what's on the other end of that interface.
> You're making your customer's life miserable by having dependencies. You're a library, your customer is using you to solve a specific problem. Write the code to solve that and be done with it.
And you just don't know what you are talking about.
If I am providing (lets say) a library that provides some high level features for a car ADAS system on top of a CAN network with a proprietary library as driver and interface.
This is not up to me to fix or choose the library and the driver version that the customer will use. He will choose the certified version he will ship, he will test my software on it and integrate it.
Vendoring dependency for anything which is not a final product (product as executable) is plain stupid.
It is a guarantee of pain and ABI madness for anybody having to deal with the integration of your blob later on.
If you want to vendor, do vendor, but stick to executables with well-defined IPC systems.
> If I am providing (lets say) a library that provides some high level features for a car ADAS system on top of a CAN network with a proprietary library as driver and interface.
If you're writing an ADAS system, and you have a "dependency tree" that needs to be "resolved" by a package manager, you should be fired immediately.
Any software that has lives riding on it, if it has dependencies, must be certified against a specific version of them, that should 100% of the time, without exceptions, must be vendored with the software.
> It is a guarantee of pain and ABI madness for anybody having to deal with the integration of your blob later on.
The exact opposite. Vendoring is the ONLY way to prevent the ABI madness of "v1.3.1 of libfoo exports libfoo_a but not libfoo_b, and v1.3.2 exports libfoo_b but not libfoo_c, and in 1.3.2 libfoo_b takes in a pointer to a struct that has a different layout."
If you MUST have libfoo (which you don't), you link your version of libfoo into your blob and you never expose any libfoo symbols in your library's blob.
9 replies →