On 8 October 2014 13:55, M.-A. Lemburg <[email protected]> wrote: > If pip decides to go with a strategy that ignores this, I think we > have a problem. The core developers put trust into pip when allowing > it to (effectively) get distributed with Python and making it the > default Python packaging manager. Please use that trust with the > appropriate care and respect.
Just to clarify - the pip team (I hope I speak for all of us) fully understand the implications of being the de facto standard package manager. And we appreciate the trust placed in us by the fact that pip is distributed with Python. But at the same time, that trust was given on the basis that (presumably) we have a track record of doing things right, in an area that is notoriously full of heated discussions and conflicting opinions. So what we'd like to do is to continue handling things in the same way as always, working with the packaging community. In particular, that means that we did not align ourselves to the CPython development model (as it is designed for a very different community and set of problems). But we do want to adopt their good practices where possible and appropriate. One of those is the PEP process - but it's not entirely suitable (see the trail of PEPs from the distribute/packaging/distutils2 era, for why). So we're trying to get things right, and in the process we're learning - for example, the failure of PEP 438 taught us that specifying installer behaviour too closely in a PEP means we can't fix problems that are completely messing up our users. But we still believe in the PEP process (anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't noticed the amount of effort Donald, in particular, is putting into all the PEPs in progress). It doesn't mean that it can be treated as a way of forcing us not to do what we think is right for the pip user base, though. Paul. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
