Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

For this sort of stuff I find micromamba / pixi a better way of managing packages, as oppposed to the pip / uv family of tools




Pixi, Conan, or Nix— all better choices than abusing the Python ecosystem to ship arbitrary executables.

It could easily be the case that the zig compiler is useful in some mixed-language project and this is not actually "abuse".

Regular Python bindings / c extensions don’t depend on a pypi-packaged instance of gcc or llvm though. It’s understood that these things are provided externally from the “system” environment.

I know some of it has already happened with rust, but perhaps there’s a broader reckoning that needs to occur here wrt standards around how language specific build and packaging systems handle cross language projects… which could well point to phasing those in favour of nix or pixi, which are designed from the getgo to support this use case.


What do those systems do that UV/PyPi doesn't?

Usually arbitrary binaries stuffed in Python wheels are mostly self contained single binaries and such, with as little dynamic linking nonsense as possible, so they don't break all the time, or have dependency conflicts.

It seems to consistently work really well for binaries, although it would be nice to have first class support for integrating npm packages.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: