On 16 April 2012 23:17, Carl Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm happy to consult with anyone working on this. I think this > particular framing conflates UI issues (what is the command named?) with > internal code structure unnecessarily. It's true that much of pip's code > is for working with sdists and support for installing binary packages > would require some significant new and separate code paths internally > (in InstallRequirement and, to a lesser extent, PackageFinder), but the > actual user-facing commands (e.g. InstallCommand) are a relatively small > part of the code; I don't think adding a separate command would actually > save much work over extending the "install" command. But I could be > wrong - were there specific issues that you saw as problematic for > adding support to "install"?
It was pretty much what you said - the InstallRequirement changes would be fairly extensive to factor out the reusable parts from the bits that only relate to source installs, and the finder changes (which I hadn't located, but knew would need to be addressed) needed to locate binary distributions as well as source ones. Also, pip reuses setuptools to build source packages, but because easy_install doesn't support --single-version-externally-managed, you can't do that for a binary, so you have to replicate all that logic within pip. Thanks, for the offer, though - if the packaging initiative doesn't come up with anything concrete for 3.3, I might look at this again. Although as I mentioned, I find that in practice, easy_install is good enough for most cases where I need binaries, and hand-unpicking the packages works for the rest (MSI and custom installers). Paul. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
