Jed Brown writes: > Sean Farley <sean.michael.far...@gmail.com> writes: >> The only problem with using non-system compilers is with C++ because >> clang++ is not ABI compatible with g++. You could use gcc just fine if >> there was something to enforce the induced dependency graph. > > Uh, isn't this libc++ vs libstdc++ rather than clang++ vs g++? Note > that merely mixing -std=c++11 code with a single compiler can be a > problem. C++ repeatedly chooses language features that make binary > compatibility difficult.
Yes, a slip on my part. I meant libc++ vs libstdc++ not being ABI compatible. >> Nope, nope, nope, nope. Using multiple package managers, including >> the broken python ones is a suggestion that is dead on arrival. I sure >> as shit don't want to remember the different commands to search for a >> package with multiple managers (Python, Ruby, node, etc.). Plus, it >> doesn't solve the issue with packages that depend on other packages not >> in its system. > > I agree with Sean that mixing package managers is a mess. Maybe if I > lived in a self-contained Python-only world, but I don't. I want to be > able to reliably install (and upgrade, remove, query) a package that > depends on any subset of packages. That could mean mixing Python, > Haskell, R, and Emacs packages. Exactly.