On 13 July 2013 14:31, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:

+1 on the inversion. I don't know what that will do to pip, it makes sense to have the installer self-contained and the packaging/building libraries be something that you grab using the installer. Having to grab the packaging infrastructure to get an installer is the more painful route.

TBH, I don't understand what "the inversion" implies. If it means pip taking all of the distlib/setuptools code that it currently uses, and making it part of pip and maintained within pip (essentially as a fork while the "inversion" is going on) then I'm not keen on that. Personally, I don't want to have to maintain that code myself - I guess if Vinay and Jason were pip maintainers and looked after that code, then that's an option. If it means pip vendoring distlib and setuptools, then OK (we do that for distlib already) but I don't see the benefit - no-ione should be doing "from pip.vendor.distlib.version import Version".

I'd need to know better what it means for pip, I guess...

Paul