On 16 September 2013 18:07, anatoly techtonik email@example.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Donald Stufft firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
So there've been a number of updates to PEP453, so i'm posting it here again for more discussion:
Just want to say that It is good to see that over three year
gained strength to be the tool of choice for Python package
management. My attempt to propose this three years ago had failed,
because there was no package management tool people could agree to,
even though the proposal was for the interactive user script that
could recommend all :
So, why PIP?
The design of pip is heavily based around addressing various issues with the design of easy_install, while still providing equivalent functionality. The last big missing piece was an updated alternative to the binary egg format that supported FHS compliant installation, and that was addressed in pip 1.4 with the initial version of pip's wheel support.
The amicable resolution of the setuptools/distribute split (with distribute merging back into setuptools and development moving to the PyPA account on BitBucket) also makes it easier for python-dev to officially bless pip as the default installation tool, which people can use unless/until they need something with more sophisticated handling of external dependencies (like zc.buildout or conda).
-- Nick Coghlan | email@example.com | Brisbane, Australia