On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote:
> Well, it’s not really a launcher no, but you’d do ``pip -p python2 install > foo`` or something like that. It’s the same UI. Having just a “launcher” I > think is actually more confusing (and we already had that in the past with > -E and removed it because it was confusing). Since you’ll have different > versions of pip in different environments (Python or virtual) things break > or act confusingly. > That can't be worse than the current situation. And I'm not asking to bring `-E` back. The idea is that the pip bin becomes a launcher file, just like py.exe - it would just try to discover an appropiate python and run `-mpip` with it. This doesn't even need to be implemented in pip - linux distributions can do this. For windows it's more tricky - but if Python on windows has getpip why can't it bundle a pip.exe, just like py.exe? Another issue that is being conflated here is the most frequent scenario: using virtualenv activation. We should should be really be talking about deprecating the activation shell scripts - messing with $PATH is what we should really look at - not deprecating `pip` bin over to the overly tedious `python -mpip`. Thanks, -- Ionel Cristian Mărieș, http://blog.ionelmc.ro
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
