Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages
[Paul Tagliamonte, 2013-09-18]
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:22:19PM +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > [W. Martin Borgert, 2013-09-18]
> > > As a passionate pip hater I would go for a Conflicts,
> > > which finally would make pip uninstallable :~)
> > > Next steps: get rid of gem, npm, EPT, ...
> >
> > +1 (unless all these "wheel re-inventors" will speed up a bit - they're
> > still where Linux packagers were 5-10 years ago)
>
> And *THIS* is why we get bad reputations.
ok, I forgot to add ";)", but...
> 1) pip isn't for global package management, for this is stupid. If we
> disabled root use of pip, I think we'd all be a bit happier.
tell that to most (sic!) Python app/library authors who recommend to
"sudo pip/ez_install ..." in their README files in order to install
their software (and tools like pip do not care that given files exist,
they just overwrite them (did rpm or dpkg do this 10 years ago?), not to
mention that they do that in /usr and not in ~/.local or at least
/usr/local (which they should not touch as well, BTW, only admins can,
but how can they know that? Why should developer on Windows care about
FHS?)
Don't get me wrong, I think pip has some valid use cases (f.e. inside
virtalenv), I even recommend it sometimes, but forcing us to use it
instead of our (much better) tools / breaking things we carefully
prepared for our users is just not acceptable.
> 2) pip workes on *every* supported OS. If you think OSX users or windows
> users are installing Python modules with dpkg, you're off your rocker.
Windows has its own distribution system (.exe installers). MacOS has
.dmg files (IIRC), Linux distributions have .rpm, .deb, .tar, ...
It's not possible for Python developer to get it right on each system
so instead of reinventing the wheel and trying to make something that
works everywhere they should make it easier for others to convert
whatever they provide (tarballs?) into .rpm, .deb or .exe. They should
not try to replace our rpm or dpkg! (vide: gems)
> 3) We're *NOT* trying to package every module and put it in the
> archive, for this, also, is stupid. pip can install from pypi,
> which *is* such a place. Or even Git checkout URLs.
that doesn't mean they can mess with software we prepared for our
users. It takes only one egg or gem to ruin months of Linux packager's
work. Admins can use pypi-install to install packages that are not in
the archive, we don't need eggs or whls, not in places where it
interferes with system software.
> 4) Python modules from dpkg are borderline useless for developers. We
> package modules so that apps can use them, not so that people can
> develop with them.
nobody forces Python/Ruby/... developers to use libraries prepared by
us... and yet they want to force us to use their .eggs and overwrite our
files.
--
Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645
Reply to: