On 13 Jul, 2013, at 15:35, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> wrote: In article <55B209B3-9576-4CF0-B58C-2A1E692AFFF1@stufft.io>, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
On Jul 13, 2013, at 1:31 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm currently leaning towards offering both, as we're going to need a tool for bootstrapping source builds, but the simplest way to bootstrap pip for Windows and Mac OS X users is to just *bundle a copy with the binary installers*. So long as the bundled copy looks *exactly* the way it would if installed later (so it can update itself), then we avoid the problem of coupling the pip update cycles to the standard library feature release cycle. The bundled version can be updated to the latest available versions when we do a Python maintenance release.
Off the top of my head, including a copy of pip as a pre-installed global site-package seems like a very reasonable suggestion. For the python.org OS X installer, it should be no problem to implement. It would be equally easy to implement for future 2.7 and 3.3 maintenance releases.
Does Apple just install the python.org OS X installer for distribution, or do they build their own thing?
They do their own thing.
My only worry is that Apple will not get the message about including pip and we will end up with an odd skew on OS X (I'm not worried about Linux distros as they all seem to follow Python development closely).
That will happen anyway, pip won't get magically installed on current OSX releases and adding it to the upcoming 10.9 release is probably not possible either unless it already happens to be in the current beta (they appear to have a fairly early cutoff point for including new software at the Unix layer). Ronald