On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:31 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 January 2014 23:16, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> So basically even though the text of the PEP specifically points out that a >> difference >> of Wheel and Egg is that Eggs are importable it somehow supports that? Can >> you >> point to a single line in the PEP that supports this besides the ones you've >> added? > > I added the clarification based on the facts that: > > 1. We discussed this extensively before PEP 427 was approved, and this > was an accepted feature of the design > 2. Root-is-purelib only makes sense in the context of supporting the feature > 3. Both ensurepip and virtualenv rely on the feature > 4. PEP 453 explicitly documents ensurepip's reliance on the feature, > with no caveat about this being unsupported in the spec > 5. I wouldn't have accepted PEP 427 if wheels didn't provide a strict > superset of the features provided by eggs > > We make mistakes, and things that were discussed and agreed don't > always get properly captured in the corresponding PEPs. > > When that happens, it's a judgement call as to whether properly > documenting that is a new feature requiring a new PEP, or merely a > clarification to the existing one. For standard library PEPs, we often > don't do either - we just fix the implementation without going back > for another round of PEP discussions (for smaller tweaks, sometimes we > don't even go back to python-dev and instead just resolve things on > the tracker). > > In this case, as BDFL-Delegate, I decided it was a case that merely > called for clarification, because I *know* what spec I accepted, and > it was the one where wheels offer all the features that eggs do and > more. I added the new text specifically because people like Armin > Ronacher and yourself had gained an idea from the PEP text that > emphatically does *not* align with the design discussions that > occurred prior to the acceptance of the PEP. > > Now, if you'd like to campaign to *remove* this support, then explain > your rationale, and make the case for why you think providing the > feature is so dangerous that removing it is worth breaking backwards > compatibility over. > > Regards, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia This was supposedly extensively discussed prior to PEP427 being accepted yet I have no memory of this being discussed, am unable to find any discussion of it (other than one offs saying it’s possible but not a core feature), and you’ve been apparently unwilling to point to any discussion. ----------------- 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 https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig