Based on discussions on IRC, we have a patch for pip 6.0 that I've backported
to the Debian packaged version. I believe it does the right thing now:
# pip install requests
Requirement already satisfied (use --upgrade to upgrade): requests in
IMO we should patch pip to *not* touch (install, upgrade, uninstall,
etc.) anything in /usr directory (or /) except /usr/local. Our Python
interpreter already installs to /usr/local and so should pip.
This way:
* pip doesn't need to figure out which file can be touched,
* we can detect cause of
On Dec 02, 2014, at 10:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Speaking only for myself, I think that sounds reasonable.
It's well established I believe in Debian Python usage that if a user
installs packages in /usr/local and break their system, they are on their
own, so I'm not particularly worried
On Dec 03, 2014, at 03:20 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
IMO we should patch pip to *not* touch (install, upgrade, uninstall,
etc.) anything in /usr directory (or /) except /usr/local. Our Python
interpreter already installs to /usr/local and so should pip.
+1
This way:
* pip doesn't need to
Package: python-pip
Version: 1.5.6-3
Severity: serious
Tags: sid jessie
pip currently silently removes/updates system provided python packages when used
on the system python. This is only seen when a user calls pip with
administrator rights, but it makes debian python packages somehow
Quoting Matthias Klose d...@debian.org:
For jessie I suggest to just disable pip when used on the system
python, unless a new option
--yes-i-want-to-screw-up-my-system-python is given.
How about disabling pip for uid 0 altogether?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
I'd very much prefer it if you didn't do this. This *is* going to break things
for people and it's going to cause a bunch of confusion.
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
On 12/02/2014 11:51 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
I'd very much prefer it if you didn't do this. This *is* going to break things
for people and it's going to cause a bunch of confusion.
It's not clear to me which side you're arguing for. can you clarify
which action is going to break things for
On Dec 2, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net
wrote:
On 12/02/2014 11:51 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
I'd very much prefer it if you didn't do this. This *is* going to break
things
for people and it's going to cause a bunch of confusion.
It's not clear to me
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 12:37:40 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 12:25 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net
wrote:
On 12/02/2014 11:51 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
I'd very much prefer it if you didn't do this. This *is* going to break
things for people and it's
I'm on my phone so forgive my formatting.
4, 3, 2 I think in order of best to worst in my opinion.
I have another question. If we fix this in the upcoming pip 6 release what is
the chances of getting an exception for pip 6 in the freeze? If I can solve the
problem in pip proper and keep the
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:15:05 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
...
I have another question. If we fix this in the upcoming pip 6 release what
is the chances of getting an exception for pip 6 in the freeze? If I can
solve the problem in pip proper and keep the delta between different
platforms
On Dec 2, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:15:05 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
...
I have another question. If we fix this in the upcoming pip 6 release what
is the chances of getting an exception for pip 6 in the freeze? If I can
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:54:37 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:15:05 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
...
I have another question. If we fix this in the upcoming pip 6 release
what
is
On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:54:37 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:15:05 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
...
I have
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 05:17:48 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:54:37 PM Donald Stufft wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com
wrote:
On Tuesday,
On Dec 2, 2014, at 6:32 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
Assuming the maintainer doesn't decide to downgrade the bug (which I think is
unlikely and a number of people would object to, so I think we can ignore it
as a possibility), the decision to ignore the bug for Jessie
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 19:28:20 Donald Stufft wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 6:32 PM, Scott Kitterman deb...@kitterman.com wrote:
Assuming the maintainer doesn't decide to downgrade the bug (which I think
is unlikely and a number of people would object to, so I think we can
ignore it
On 12/02/2014 10:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 19:28:20 Donald Stufft wrote:
So what if Debian just patched python-pip so that it doesn’t remove the
files from /usr/lib (but it would remove files from /usr/local etc). This
would have the effect of pip not touching
19 matches
Mail list logo
