On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Keith Goodman <kwgoodman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:10 AM, René Dudfield <renesd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:47, René Dudfield <renesd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Ravi <lists_ravi@lavabit.com> wrote:
On Wednesday 30 December 2009 06:15:45 René Dudfield wrote:
I agree with many things in that post. Except your conclusion on multiple versions of packages in isolation. Package isolation is like processes, and package sharing is like threads - and threads are evil!
You have stated this several times, but is there any evidence that this is the desire of the majority of users? In the scientific community, interactive experimentation is critical and users are typically not seasoned systems administrators. For such users, almost all packages installed after installing python itself are packages they use. In particular, all I want to do is to use apt/yum to get the packages (or ask my sysadmin, who rightfully has no interest in learning the intricacies of python package installation, to do so) and continue with my work. "Packages-in-isolation" is for people whose job is to run server farms, not interactive experimenters.
500+ packages on pypi. Provide a counter point, otherwise the evidence is against your position - overwhelmingly.
Linux distributions, which are much, much more popular than any collection of packages on PyPI you might care to name. Isolated environments have their uses, but they are the exception, not the rule.
wrong. pypi has way more python packages than any linux distribution. 8500+ listed, compared to how many in debian?
Debian has over 30k packages. But I think he was talking about popularity, not the number of packages.
Oh, 30k is all packages not just python.