Re: PEP 453 affects Debian packaging of Python packages
[Stuart Prescott, 2013-09-19]
> > I don't understand the pip hate. Why don't you guys try and, you know,
> > figure out *why* these tools were invented. It (for sure) is overly
> > simplistic, but it's there for a reason.
>
> It's pretty obvious why these tools were invented -- I think everyone
> appreciates the difficulties of installing and distributing software across
> different platforms, particularly legacy ones with no native concept of
> package management. I think it's also safe to assume that the python
> packaging list is probably acutely aware of API problems in python modules
> that would make it useful in virtualenvs too.
>
> However, we're currently in a situation where users can very easily make an
> absolute mess of their set up without realising that's what they are going
> to do and it then becomes Debian's user support problem. We see this on a
> regular enough basis -- packages stop working and the python stackdumps show
> modules with incompatible APIs being loaded from /usr/local/. (#703874 is
> just one example of this that I have to hand -- I'm sure the BTS has many
> more and we see a few per week like this in #debian)
>
> Who gets the blame for mess made? The Debian project and its developers. Who
> ends up helping users clean up the mess? The Debian project and its
> developers. Pip can as useful as it wants in virtualenvs but it already has
> a lot of historical baggage attached to it that is mostly associated copious
> amounts of time spent trying to fix the mess it makes on Debian machines.
>
> That's why you have pip hate.
>
> For better or for worse, proposals to make further use of pip carry all this
> historical baggage with them. As suggested elsewhere in this thread changing
> pip so that it was difficult to do things system-wide would help with this.
my thoughts exactly
--
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: