<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:47, Sridhar Ratnakumar <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sridharr@activestate.com">sridharr@activestate.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:11:38 -0700, Jesse Noller <<a href="mailto:jnoller@gmail.com" target="_blank">jnoller@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Then why not include pip, easy_install, and this bash script I use to<br>
install packages into core? The more the merrier, right?<br>
Answer: None of these are standards, and as nick points out, there's<br>
issues with sysadmins, security, and other things. Not to mention<br>
they're fundamentally not part of the language.<br>
At the language summit, this was hashed out quite a bit. I think most<br>
everyone agreed that tools like easy_install, pip, virtualenv,<br>
zc.buildout, etc simply do not belong in core python.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Once PEP 376 is implemented, my suggestion is to at least link to these tools (if not write a paragraph) as way of pointing users to alternative package managers that uses the 'uninstall' API. A mention of PyPI would also be helpful.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>You can put that in the wiki, but it does not belong in the core documentation (except the PyPI mention as we do control that). That simply becomes a maintenance nightmare for use as we then have to keep up with the releases of external tools that we have no direct connection with. Plus it also give the illusion that Python has blessed these tools when in fact we have not.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Brett </div></div>