[swift-build-dev] [Proposal] Lock file for Swift Package Manager
max.howell at apple.com
Mon Jan 4 17:27:10 CST 2016
To some length I have discussed the filename issue with Rick and I think I agree with him that `.lock` was a bad choice from the packaging community in general.
This is a command line tool and there is a long history of .lock files meaning “the file is locked because it is in use, do not edit the file without the .lock extension” on UNIX.
Carthage agreed, they chose ‘.resolved’.
NPM creates a “npm-shrinkwrap.json” file (although it will only do this on demand). I like the name “shrink-wrap” since it conveys the ‘sealed’ nature of the process.
We should consider using a proper format like JSON and using its extension too.
> On Jan 4, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Ankit Agarwal <ankit at ankit.im> wrote:
> any updates on this?
> On Wednesday 23 December 2015, Ankit Agarwal <ankit at ankit.im <mailto:ankit at ankit.im>> wrote:
> Thank you all for the valuable feedback I have updated the proposal to reflect the changes which are agreed upon by majority. Please go through the updated proposal below and provide more feedback.
> Lock File for Swift Package Manager
> A Package.lock file containing list of resolved dependencies generated by swiftpm.
> Package.lock file can be helpful in situations like :
> Reproduce exact versions of dependencies on different machine
> Multiple developers working on a package would want to use the exact versions(including minor and patch) of the dependencies declared in the manifest file
> When a build is being performed on a remote machine eg CI
> Pointing a dependency to an untagged commit
> Sometimes it might be helpful to lock a dependency to a particular commit ref for which a tagged version is unavailable in cases such as :
> Forking a 3rd party library and making it swiftpm compatible for temporary use until officially supported by the author
> Package is in active development and not ready for a release tag
> Proposed Solution
> swiftpm generates a simple Package.lock file after resolving the dependency graph for that package in some simple format.
> Detailed Design
> Package.lock aka the lock file
> Package.lock is a plain text auto-generated file containing list of resolved dependencies: one line per dependency in format
> <gitURL> <resolvedVersion>
> "github.com/foo/bar <http://github.com/foo/bar>" "v1.1"
> "../mygitdir" "v2.3"
> "github.com/my/forked/dep <http://github.com/my/forked/dep>" "8b3989be184375ae6e84e8a0254e5258789b23e5"
> Package.lock will always contain the exact version of the dependency resolved by SPM
> User is expected to commit the lock file into the git repo for others to reproduce the exact versions of dependencies on their system
> lock file of dependencies are ignored and only their Package.swift is taken into consideration for resolving all the dependencies
> User is not expected to interact with this file as it'll always be generated by SPM so it might make sense to:
> not to use swift syntax in this file.
> keep it seperate from Package.swift to avoid confusion for new users.
> Another option could be using very minimal valid swift syntax for eg :
> ("github.com/foo/bar <http://github.com/foo/bar>", "v1.1"),
> ("github.com/my/forked/dep <http://github.com/my/forked/dep>","8b3989be184375ae6e84e8a0254e5258789b23e5")
> $ swift build :
> Dependencies declared in Package.swift and Package.lock is not present :
> Resolves Package.swift and generates Package.lock; uses the generated Package.lock to fetch and build the dependencies
> Package.lock already present :
> Uses the generated Package.lock to fetch and build the dependencies.
> if Package.swift has been modified SPM generates a warning for user to consider updating the lock file using $ swift build --update (explained below)
> Packages/ is out of sync with lock file :
> Uncommited changes in Packages/ : User is probably trying to modify the dep so suggest him to use the $ swift build --ignore-lock command (explained below)
> Commited changes in Packages/ : User is done making changes in the dependency but forgot to lock them so HEADs don't match, suggest him to use $ swift build --lock command (explained below)
> $ swift build --update :
> Remove current Package.lock if present and re-resolve Package.swift to generate a new Package.lock file for all the deps.
> To update only one dependency use $ swift build --update=<dep_name>
> $ swift build --lock :
> Locks the current HEAD packages in Packages/ and writes them into the lock file uses tags where available otherwise refs
> To lock only one dependency use $ swift build --lock=<dep_name>
> $ swift build --ignore-lock :
> Ignores the lock file and use HEAD of Package/ to build the deps without writing to lock file
> Useful for development
> Workflow for Pointing a dependency to an untagged commit
> Create Package.swift and declare dependencies
> Run $ swift build to resolve and build the Package
> Modify and play with the checkedout dependencies in Packages/
> Commit and push the changes to the git remote mentioned in Package.swift
> Once satisfied with the current state of a package lock it using $ swift build --lock=<dep_name>
> Commit the lock file and push for others to use
> If a dependency(foo) is using a dependency(bar) with an untagged commit
> Author of foo mentions in their readme that they're using bar on an untagged commit
> Package(baz) wanting to use foo and bar both will need to lock his bar package to same untagged commit
> Impact on existing code
> None on the code but old users will not be able to run $ swift build with changes in their Packages/ which is possible right now, they'll need to use $ swift build --ignore-lock instead which will be communicated using warnings as stated above.
> Alternatives Considered
> One alternative is to allow mentioning refs in manifest file while declaring a dependency but as discussed in this <> thread it might not be the best idea.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-build-dev