On 13 July 2013 06:31, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > * bundling a *full* copy of pip with the Python installers for Windows and > Mac OS X, but installing it to site-packages rather than to the standard > library directory. That way pip can be used to upgrade itself as normal, > rather than making it part of the standard library per se. This is then > closer to the "bundled application" model adopted for IDLE in PEP 434 (we > could, in fact, move to distributing idle the same way).
How robust is the process of upgrading pip using itself? Specifically on Windows, where these things typically seem less reliable. Personally, I have never upgraded pip using itself, because I only ever install pip in virtualenvs, which don't have a lifespan as long as a pip release cycle :-) It would be easy to imagine a new pip release resulting in a *lot* of bugs raised against Python (rather than pip) saying that the upgrade fails. And of course if an upgrade fails, we can't just release a new version of pip that fixes the issue, because it's the *old* version that is installed and has to do the upgrade. So there's manual fiddling to do. Not a good experience for Python users. My current workflow is to have absolutely nothing installed in the system Python and use virtualenvs for everything. This is a bit extreme, but the issues I've hit in the past when package management has gone wrong have made me very cautious. If the pip upgrade process is rock-solid, this isn't an issue, but I'm not sure that it is, myself. Paul
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig