- Breaking behavior between minor versions (https://github.com/conda/conda/issues/7290)
- Environments not actually being isolated (https://github.com/conda/conda/issues/448)
- Can't create environments in long paths (https://github.com/conda/constructor/issues/156)
Those are just a few I can remember. We unfortunately have not found a strong replacement.
See https://github.com/conda/conda/issues/7248 for where conda intends to head in the future on the environment.yml issue.
> Environments not actually being isolated
That's actually a really sticky issue, and one that's more about the python interpreter itself rather than anything conda is doing. More recent discussion at https://github.com/conda/conda/issues/7173. Yes, we can change the default behavior of the python interpreter. Either way though, we'll be making a group of people mad.
> Can't create environments in long paths
Of course you can. `conda create` works well with long paths on unix systems (Windows is more difficult, but we're working on that too). What you're bumping into in that issue is that the constructor installer builder isn't (right now) compatible with longer paths. The solution really is to get conda bootstrapped onto your system, and then just use that one conda. You don't need full miniconda installations scattered all over the place. One easy way to do it is bootstrap conda into `/opt/conda` and then symlink `/opt/conda/bin/conda` to `/usr/local/bin/conda`. Now `conda create` whatever and wherever you want.
> We unfortunately have not found a strong replacement.
Conda definitely isn't perfect, and it's far from a "done" project. One thing we do have at this point is years of battle-hardening with something like six million active users blanketing all sorts of operating environments. With conda-forge being as strong as it is today, I'm not sure anything else like it really exists. Nix and pkgsrc are probably the closest alternatives.
I'm trying to figure out why is all this new manylinux PEP stuff "inspired by conda" and is not actually conda.
Is this a situation like grsecurity vs Torvalds? How does the situation change now that BDFL is gone ?
Ha! Conda and Anaconda, Inc. are _not_ like grsecurity. Starting with the fact the Conda is BSD-licensed.
Recounting some of the history will probably provide the context you're looking for.
It's my understanding that the birth of Anaconda (the distribution) and Conda goes back to this statement by Guido regarding package building and installing at a PyData summit in 2012:
> It really sounds like you guys' needs are so unusual compared to the larger python community that you're just better off building your own.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjXJLVINsSA&t=59m10s
This predated PEP 427 (Wheel Binary Package Format 1.0).
Of course both conda and pip/wheels have evolved immensely since 2012, and their evolution has been guided by different constraints. Elsewhere in this thread I spoke about how pip/wheels/PyPA packaging has as it's primary target the site-packages directory, and then branches out from there when necessary. Conda's primary target is the prefix root. PyPA's mandate is to build, install, and manage python packages, which makes something like 'pip install python3' out of scope. Things like 'pip install postgresql' and 'pip install r' are _for sure_ out of scope. Conda has the luxury of being able to install and manage all packages, not just python packages.
Regarding the creep of wheels toward conda packages, and especially the static embedding within wheels of compiled "system" libraries, I question whether it's actually to the benefit of python _users_. No doubt the wheel "binary" format is a huge improvement over eggs for pure-python packages. But manylinux wheels are often built going beyond just compiled python extensions. Rather than describing these "system" dependencies in metadata, and then having pip ensure these system dependencies are present before installing the package, these wheels now implicitly cross the python-only line that PyPA in other cases holds. There are real consequences for users, with the result being that it pushes failure mechanisms back rather forward.
So, because of the differences in scope, my guess is that the python community would think it inappropriate to make Conda an official PEP. Conda will probably someday install wheels (at least pure-python ones); maybe someday pip can reach out to conda or apt-get or yum to ask for non-python dependencies to be installed.
> and make conda-forge part of the Python Foundation (instead of a private company)
Conda-forge is actually a community-driven organization completely independent of Anaconda, Inc.
Despite some of our issues with it, Conda has worked well for us both as a development team and in production for quite some time.
> six million active users
That's awesome to hear, and one of the reasons we haven't seriously invested in a replacement.
