Talk:Conda (package manager)

Lorica cite removed

<ref>
{{cite web
 | last = Lorica
 | first = Ben
 | title = Python data tools just keep getting better
 | publisher = O'Reilly Radar
 | date = March 24, 2013
 | url = http://radar.oreilly.com/2013/03/python-data-tools-just-keep-getting-better.html
 | accessdate = October 30, 2014}}</ref>  that installs, runs, and updates packages and their dependencies.<ref name="conda.pydata"/>

It's a fine article (and Lorica is a big name, which is why I clicked on it) but the cite only mentions Anaconda as "having a solution" for "messy integration problems", without ever naming Conda as such.

The imputation, by placing this cite in this article, is that—of course!—Anaconda's solution is centered around Conda (what else does Anaconda even offer in this space?)

Somehow, I don't think that's how proper cites work (but it is how marketing works). — MaxEnt 20:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Pip Comparison?

I believe Pip now checks for dependency conflicts, so a large chunk of this article comparing to it seems out of date. 146.115.69.152 (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

conda-forge

The article mentions "software repository" but does not explicitly refers to conda-forge which is an integral part of the tool. Sonelu (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]