On 18 Jul 2013 08:31, "Vinay Sajip" <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > It's good that distil exists as a proof of concept, but the ship has sailed > on the default language level installer: it will be pip. > > I understand that it's your call as the packaging czar, but was there any > discussion about this before the decision was made? Any pros and cons of > different approaches weighed up? Python 3.4 beta is still 5-6 months away. > Call me naive, but I would normally have expected a PEP on the bundling of pip > to be produced by an interested party/champion, then that people would discuss > and refine the PEP on the mailing list, and *then* a pronouncement would be > made. This is what PEP 1 describes as the PEP process. Instead, it seems a > decision has already been made, and now an author/champion for a PEP is being > sought ex post facto. With all due respect, this seems back to front - so it > would be good to have a better understanding of the factors that went into the > decision, including the timing of it. Can you shed some light on this?
Technically the decision *hasn't* been made - there is, as yet, no bundling PEP for me to consider for any installer, and I've decided not to accept Richard's bootstrapping PEP due to the issues around delaying the download to first use. I'd just like to have a bundling PEP posted before I make that official, so I can refer to it in the rejection notice. However, even without a PEP, I consider pip the only acceptable option, as I believe we have no credibility left to burn with the broader Python development community on tool choices. We've spent years telling everyone "use distribute over setuptools and pip over easy_install". The former sort of caught on (but it was subtle, since Linux distros all packaged distribute as setuptools anyway), and the latter has been quite effective amongst those that didn't need the binary egg format support. We're now telling people, OK setuptools is actually fine, but you should still use pip instead of easy_install and start using wheels instead of eggs. This is defensible, since even people using distribute were still importing setuptools. However, I simply see *no way* we could pull off a migration to a new recommended installer when the migration from the previous one to the current one is still far from complete :P Adding in the distutils2/packaging digression just lowers our collective credibility even further, and we also get some significant spillover from the Python 3 transition. Essentially, don't underestimate how thin the ice we're currently walking on is community-wise: people are irritated and even outright angry with the Python core development team, and they have good reasons to be. We need to remain mindful of that, and take it into account when deciding how to proceed. Cheers, Nick. > > Thanks and regards, > > Vinay Sajip > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
