Re: bug #551926: python-pip and pip: error when trying to install together

[Ian Bicking <ianb@colorstudy.com>]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Tim Retout <tim@retout.co.uk> wrote:

Ian, please see the thread starting at:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/11/msg01034.html

In short, Debian must rename at least one of the binaries called 'pip'.

My first thought was to rename the perl pip because it was a more
recent addition to Debian, but it's been pointed out that Perl's pip
predates the Python one.  Do you have any thoughts as to how we should
proceed?

I'll note I did at least do some research before the renaming, but Perl's pip had such poor google ratings (and generally a minimal web presence) that it didn't show up in my research, and I only heard of it when I announced the new name.  At that time no one actually asked me to rename pip, so I just let it go.  Also the Perl pip's web presence was such that it was unclear that it was actively being used and developed.

But I suppose pypip would be a reasonable name.  pyinstall doesn't read right now that it's a two-level command.  python-pip seems unnecessarily long-winded.

Note also that with virtualenv 1.4.1 (newer than the current Debian package, I think), pip is automatically installed in all new environments.  Meaning you do:

  $ virtualenv my-env

  $ my-env/bin/pip install ...

It would be inconsistent with many online documents to rename this binary.  At the same time, there's no particular conflict since that script is localized to a Python-specific environment.  Which I guess makes me think: I'm not particularly concerned with the system-level packaging of pip, as I think system-level Python libraries should be installed through the Debian packaging system, and pip (which doesn't use Debian packages) should be used in concert with virtualenv to install local versions of libraries.  

--
Ian Bicking  |  http://blog.ianbicking.org  |  http://topplabs.org/civichacker