[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Conda environments and reproducibility
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Conda environments and reproducibility |
Date: |
Fri, 02 Dec 2022 12:05:40 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
I read this thread with interest—great to have first-hand feedback from
Conda users and packagers who also understand Guix!
Hugo Buddelmeijer <hugo@buddelmeijer.nl> skribis:
> That is, "conda env export" should contain entries like
> "scipy=1.8.0=py39hee8e79c_1", where the hee8e79c should uniquely define the
> dependencies 'that matter', like which compiler is used. What goes into the
> hash seems rather complicated, and grows over time.
I think one source of many problems here is to think that there are
dependencies that do not matter. Another one, which those hashes appear
to address, is to think that a name/version pair is enough to
unambiguously designate a software artifact.
This hash is a hash of the build result, not a hash of the input, is
that correct?
I think it would be great to have a blog post that walks through
shortcomings and concrete issues one may encounter when trying to
reproduce a software environment with Conda, contrasting it with how
Guix does thing. This would probably make more sense for people who use
Conda everyday than a high-level overview of Guix.
Thanks,
Ludo’.