On Jul 13, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote:
> Could we just start to move away from an executable script and start > promoting rather aggressively -m instead? It truly solves this problem and > since the results are tied to the Python executable used (i.e. where > something gets installed) it disambiguates what Python binary pip is going to > work with (something I have trouble with thanks to Python 2 and 3 both being > installed and each with their own pip installation). I realize older Python > versions can't do this (I believe 2.6 and older can't for packages) but at > least in the situation we are discussing here of bundling pip it's not an > issue. I find the -m interface ugly as a primary cli api. It's ok for bonus functionality (ala json.tool) and debugging utilities (ala SimpleServer) but as a developer of user facing tools I don't think I'd ever want to tell them that they should use ``python -m`` to execute my tool. It's also a massive change in functionality from the existing pip interface. ``pip install`` is what everyone uses. The point is more or less moot though unless you're advocating not including an executable script at all. Because pip is already able to be executed with ``python -m pip`` however I don't believe i've seen anyone use that in practice. It also provides the "pip" and "pip-X.Y" commands which should probably be normalized to "pip", "pipX", and "pipX.Y". ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
