On 1 Sep 2014 17:31, "Donald Stufft" <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 2:22 AM, Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> And that is a minor complication compared with the confusion and 
>> difficulty of trying to explain to users (stuck with 2.7 for the time 
>> being) of how to install third-party packages on each platform 
>> (especially Windows) versus the simplicity of the 3.4.x story, thanks to 
>> ensurepip.  Having pip available as a documented, batteries-included 
>> tool for all current releases would be a huge usability improvement.
>
>
> Yes this is a major driver. I mean I think I probably have an above average
> knowledge of how to bootstrap pip, and if you dump me on a Windows box
> I struggle to actually do it the first time around without stumbling around and
> doing things in the wrong order and the like. (Getting a compiler toolchain is
> worse, but yay for Wheels).

Yeah. I've mentioned it before, but I think it bears repeating that trying to install pip on Windows with both Python 2 & 3 installed was one of the key things that convinced me to write PEP 453 in the first place. The default settings in both Internet and Windows explorer make it tricky regardless, but parallel installs make it even worse.

>> FTR, I'm willing to backport the pieces I did for 3.4 and I could do the 
>> ensurepip backport, as well.  I'll leave the Windows installer changes 
>> for someone else, though.
>
>
> Awesome, I’m of course willing to back port ensure pip itself as well. Truthfully
> it shouldn’t be a very difficult backport. It’s only ~200 SLOC or so and the only
> real things would be removing a Python3ism here or there.

Backporting meaningful tests will actually be the annoying part: the current unit tests use unittest.mock, while the current functional tests use pyvenv :)

Both of those can be dealt with, but the tests will be a bit of an ugly hack by comparison with their Py3 counterparts :)

Cheers,
Nick.