this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
117 points (97.6% liked)

Programming

16975 readers
1288 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This situation is due to npm's policy shift following the infamous "left-pad" incident in 2016, where a popular package left-pad was removed, grinding development to a halt across much of the developer world. In response, npm tightened its rules around unpublishing, specifically preventing the unpublishing of any package that is used by another package.

This already seems like a pretty strange approach, and takes away agency from package maintainers. What if you accidentally published something you want to remove..? It kind of turns npm into a very centralized system.

If they don't want to allow hard-removals because of this, why not let people unpublish packages into a soft/hidden state instead? Maybe mark them with the current dependencies, but don't allow new ones - or something

I prefer the approach of Azure DevOps more. When you publish any nuget, or npm into their system, the entire package dependency tree is pulled in and backed up there. So you don't rely on NPM anymore to keep your referenced packages safe

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I feel like you could also give the maintainers the power to "re-publish" using a different verified maintainer so that if such a thing does happen, it can be reversed without input from the maintainer that originally pulled it. I don't know enough about the system to really know if this is a good idea tho.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Yeah then you’ve got security problems. If a maintainer pulls a package, you wouldn’t want some rando able to push a new one in its place.