Fwd: Re: psycopg2/psycopg2-binary
Can a mod please disable this person's subscription to distutils-sig...? ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: <eysz7x@python-org.link> Date: Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [Distutils] Re: psycopg2/psycopg2-binary To: <njs@pobox.com> [image: BitBounce] Thanks for emailing me! No, I haven’t been hacked :) I signed up for a spam filtering service called BitBounce. To deliver your email to my inbox, please click the link below and pay the small Bitcoin fee. Thanks! *$0.05* to deliver your email. We’ve never met — I’ll pay your fee. <https://bitbounce.com/pay_bitbounce_fee/1052592896> I know you — Add me to your whitelist. <https://bitbounce.com/whitelist/request_access/3014729?email_address=njs@pobox.com&ref=bitbounce> *BitBounce* <https://bitbounce.com?ref=bitbounce> is powered by the *Credo* <https://bitbounce.com/credo> cryptocurrency *I’m from a business* — what are my *delivery options* <https://business.bitbounce.com> BitBounce and Credo are transacted through *CredoEx* <https://credoex.com?ref=bitbounce> Made by Turing Technology Inc. in San Mateo, California *Sign Up for BitBounce* <https://bitbounce.com?ref=bitbounce> -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org <http://vorpus.org>
Is this a useful data point in discussion of some sort of proposal for external shared libraries? I remember talking last year with Nathaniel and Nick Coghlan about some sort of way to express dependencies on native package managers, such as yum and apt, and perhaps others that are less native, but still lower level than pip, such as conda, brew, and chocolatey. Would this discussion not have been a problem if python, libpq, and psycopg2 were all linked against some reference external openssl, rather than trying to do any of the vendoring game? I suppose perhaps not, since this seems to have been a mess even before, and the lack of cleanup of the hacks for that mess seem to be the issue. Still, maybe yes, because the attempt to vendor may not have happened in the first place if it were more standard practice to rely on shared libraries from an external provider. I don't really want to dig into the details on this mailing list - compatibility and making it work would/will be pretty hard in the general case for all libraries on all OSes. I know there's a lot of devilish detail there. I hope it can be a topic of discussion at the packaging summit at PyCon this year. On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 6:13 PM Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
Is this a useful data point in discussion of some sort of proposal for external shared libraries? I remember talking last year with Nathaniel and Nick Coghlan about some sort of way to express dependencies on native package managers, such as yum and apt, and perhaps others that are less native, but still lower level than pip, such as conda, brew, and chocolatey. Would this discussion not have been a problem if python, libpq, and psycopg2 were all linked against some reference external openssl, rather than trying to do any of the vendoring game? I suppose perhaps not, since this seems to have been a mess even before, and the lack of cleanup of the hacks for that mess seem to be the issue. Still, maybe yes, because the attempt to vendor may not have happened in the first place if it were more standard practice to rely on shared libraries from an external provider. I don't really want to dig into the details on this mailing list - compatibility and making it work would/will be pretty hard in the general case for all libraries on all OSes. I know there's a lot of devilish detail there. I hope it can be a topic of discussion at the packaging summit at PyCon this year. On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 6:13 PM Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
participants (2)
-
Michael Sarahan -
Nathaniel Smith