[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Amend Debian Python Proposal to Include More Python Metadata?



Hi,

[Donald Stufft, 2016-01-21]
> I'd like to suggest a change to the Debian Policy around Python packages that
> will help enable the world of Python packaging to continue to progress forward.
[...]
> I have a series of improvements that I'd like to make to the packaging
> toolchain that will sort of build on one another, but which is not going to
> function correctly with the distutils style metadata and I'm hoping that I can
> convince y'all to make it policy to default to generating one of the other two
> kinds (with varying methods, more on that later).

Isn't that something for distutils-sig or python-dev?
We install whatever setup.py creates, no matter if it's egg-info dir,
file or something else.

[...]
> Now, I know that upgrading OS provided packages using pip is less than optimal

it's more than that, it's something that makes me scream: kill it! kill it with
fire!!! (but since we also allow /bin/rm in Debian, I guess we have to
tolerate pip ;)

> and I would greatly prefer that people did not do it (and I'm generally in
> agreement) however if we don't enable people to do it, they'll just continue to
> use an old version of pip and file bugs. It's a non starter for pip to make it
> impossible to do.

did I mention fire? ;)

[...]
> An additional benefit here is that by switching to using the directory based
> options, we can add additional metadata files to the installed projects, much
> like the INSTALLER file from PEP376 (IIRC). This file will likely be the path
> to having pip refuse to touch OS owned files all together without some sort of
> --force flag to override the safety switch.

why pip cannot do that right now? IMO pip should be allowed to touch 3 types
of paths only: /usr/local/pythonX.Y/, ~/.local/lib/pythonX.Y/ and virtual envs.

[...]
> So without getting into the actual *method* of doing this (of which there are
> several different options with different trade offs) does this sound like
> something at all that Debian would be interested in?

to be honest, I still don't know what you're asking for. What do you
want us to do? Patch 2.7's distutils?
-- 
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: