Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CEP: Standardize Lock File Format #107

Open
travishathaway opened this issue Jan 7, 2025 · 6 comments
Open

CEP: Standardize Lock File Format #107

travishathaway opened this issue Jan 7, 2025 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@travishathaway
Copy link
Contributor

travishathaway commented Jan 7, 2025

To facilitate cross tool compatibility (e.g. conda, mamba, and pixi), we should standardize a lock file format so that all tools are able to read and write the same lock files.

Currently, there are two options:

  • conda-lock
  • rattler-lock

The latter lock file type has seen more recent development, and made several improvements over what was initially developed by conda-lock; therefore, it would make a better choice to use as the model for standardization.

The CEP to be written shall include a precise description of how the lock file is to be formatted and include a reference link to the current implementation in rattler-lock.

@jaimergp
Copy link
Contributor

jaimergp commented Jan 7, 2025

xref #79

@travishathaway
Copy link
Contributor Author

Also: #81

@h-vetinari
Copy link

Tangentially related: PEP 751, where a multi-year discussion is now winding down towards a possible conclusion.

@travishathaway
Copy link
Contributor Author

@h-vetinari,

Thanks for linking to that. I will be carefully reading that proposal and learn more about the ongoing discussions.

@jaimergp
Copy link
Contributor

jaimergp commented Jan 8, 2025

Hm, I thought the Python lockfiles were not going to make it in the end? Source: https://bsky.app/profile/snarky.ca/post/3ldp5zvst4c2v

@h-vetinari
Copy link

It got trimmed down because people (still) couldn't agree on much of the semantics. But the discussion has lots of material on this subject.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants