On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 July 2013 14:31, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > >> +1 on the inversion. I don't know what that will do to pip, it makes >> sense to have the installer self-contained and the packaging/building >> libraries be something that you grab using the installer. Having to grab >> the packaging infrastructure to get an installer is the more painful route. > > > TBH, I don't understand what "the inversion" implies. If it means pip > taking all of the distlib/setuptools code that it currently uses, and > making it part of pip and maintained within pip (essentially as a fork > while the "inversion" is going on) then I'm not keen on that. Personally, I > don't want to have to maintain that code myself - I guess if Vinay and > Jason were pip maintainers and looked after that code, then that's an > option. If it means pip vendoring distlib and setuptools, then OK (we do > that for distlib already) > The point is you shouldn't have to grab a packaging tool just to install stuff if you never need the packaging tool. Since pip is supposed to be *the* first thing you install for Python you don't want that to have its own dependencies, muddying up the installation process. > but I don't see the benefit - no-ione should be doing "from > pip.vendor.distlib.version import Version". > > That's just asking for trouble if someone did that (plus if you did that it would be pip._vendor to get the privacy point across). > I'd need to know better what it means for pip, I guess... > I suspect we all do. =)
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig