On Nov 10, 2015 11:09 PM, "Wayne Werner" <waynejwer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > With all of the weirdness involved, it makes me wonder - could there be a better way? If we waved our hands and were able to magically make Python package management perfect, what would that look like? > > Would that kind of discussion even be valuable?
e.g. re-specifying the mission, goals, and objectives of PyPA? or e.g. creating a set of numbered user stories / specification requirements? "[Users] can [...] (in order to [...] (thus [saving\gaining] [resource xyz]))" * Users can install packages from a package index IOT: * share code: sdist * share binaries: save build time, * Users can specify (python) package dependencies * [ ] Users can specify (platform) package (build) dependencies * e.g. libssl-dev * conda does not solve for this either * [ ] Users can link between built packages and source VCS revisions with URIs * platform-rev / rev-platform * **diff** > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 6:22 PM Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > > >> I totally get why people dislike the ergonomics of 'python -m pip', >> but we can also acknowledge that it does solve a real technical >> problem: it strictly reduces the number of things that can go wrong, >> in a tool that's down at the base of the stack. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
