03:51 <JacobWeisz[m]> I am leaning towards it probably being safe to move vagrant-spk's base box to Buster, and probably safe to use Python 3 for vagrant-spk.

03:52 <JacobWeisz[m]> I did have issues testing the uwsgi stack with Python3 vagrant-spk (which shouldn't impact Python in the VM) and Buster as the base box, but I'm not positive if that was just a Windows issue, because I got like an OS Protocol Error.

03:53 <JacobWeisz[m]> The uwsgi stack still pulls in python2 somehow, and we probably should remediate that too.

05:26 <xet7> JacobWeisz[m]: With "making Sandstorm app with a Sandstorm app", do you mean like packaging https://www.nubuilder.com for Sandstorm?

05:36 <JacobWeisz[m]> I mean I want the tools to build a Sandstorm app to be usable within Sandstorm, not like that you can build some apps that run in Sandstorm grains, but that like, you could do work in a grain that outputs an SPK you can install as an entirely different app.

19:43 <isd> No reason in principle that couldn't be done.

19:44 <isd> It's crossed my mind before.

19:48 <JacobWeisz[m]> I just feel like there's plenty of times I'd play with app development when an app development environment isn't handy.

19:49 <JacobWeisz[m]> (Mostly because I am on Windows machines I can't install VMs on.)

19:49 <isd> Yeah. you'd need to nail down the scope a bit; per discussion it's not practical to build something quite as flexible as what you can do outside of the sandbox, but you could be prescriptive about toolchain for an MVP.

19:51 <abliss> i'm not disagreeing that it would be fun to build and/or use, but i feel compelled to point out that you can't install VMs in a grain either... whatever you did to narrow the toolchain down to something prescriptive would probably also make it easy to use on windows.

19:54 <isd> To that point, the packaging code in docker-spk should be portable, so you could build packaging tools that work on windows on top of that.

20:37 <JacobWeisz[m]> I mean, vagrant-spk works on Windows (mostly) but I have to install things and depend on things. And of course, my environment has to be set up on each machine I might be at.

20:37 <JacobWeisz[m]> Ian, doesn't the tools you made for docker-spk to make SPKs work without Sandstorm at all?

21:15 <isd> It does. You need the capnp executable in your PATH, but it doesn't need anything from Sandstorm.

21:20 <JacobWeisz[m]> Probably would be the best starting point for a Sandstorm IDE then that doesn't need Sandstorm itself to run.

22:12 <isd> Agreed, though I suspect spk pack would work inside of sandstorm just fine.

22:23 <JacobWeisz[m]> I just figured spk depended on other parts of Sandstorm itself and that it might be hard to run inside Sandstorm, but you would be more versed in that code, I suppose.

23:19 <isd> spk dev won't work obviously, but most commands should be fine.

23:22 <isd> My inclination would probably be to build on top of the Go lib anyway, just since I feel like it would be easier to integrate with whatever other stuff you want the thing to do. Whereas the spk stuff in the sandstorm codebase isn't library-ified quite as well, so you'd be stuck invoking the CLI tool, which is a bit less flexible.

23:23 <isd> I'm not likely to dive into this in the immediate term; I have too many projects already, and it's hard for me to justify spending a bunch of time on dev tooling when there aren't very many devs that would actually benefit -- more useful to work on a few apps.

23:55 <JacobWeisz[m]> I am mostly just musing about my wish list.

23:56 <JacobWeisz[m]> Rather than trying to redirect any priorities.

23:56 <isd> I figured.