First attempt at this, so please be gentle. :) I am very interested in the overall goal of not needing virtualenvs, but I'm curious about the motivations behind pep-582. Could someone help me understand if this has previously been discussed and in that case why it was decided against? 1: Why only look in CWD and not traverse root-wise? 2: It feels to me like there is a larger story here about sprucing up PYTHONPATH. About 2) I would prefer if we had a mechanism to automatically look for .pythonpath.pth (or something with a better name, but to that effect). Then we were not limited to a specific directory or location. This would streamline cross project repos, for instance: you could have docker images that came preloaded with common libraries and just add a layer with your specifics in a different directory earlier in the paths specified by .pythonpath.pth Using pip to install into your directories of choice is already supported, although perhaps we should have some way of telling it to use the first entry in .pythonpath.pth. I would be very grateful for some interaction on this. If there is general interest I could submit some working code. Thanks, // Phil -- *Philip Bergen* P: +1(415)200-7340 *"Without data you are just another person with an opinion" -- W. Edwards Deming*
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 3:29 PM Philip Bergen via Python-ideas < python-ideas@python.org> wrote:
In a word, simplicity. Teaching newcomers about virtual environments is a stumbling block, but so if when they accidentally pollute their global installation when they get started.PEP 582 is an attempt to handle the simple case nicely.
Surprise, potential security implications, other languages that have a similar solution don't do that.
2: It feels to me like there is a larger story here about sprucing up PYTHONPATH.
It's been a common theme that when people read PEP 582 they think there's a larger story, so you're not alone. :)
PEP 582 isn't about sharing installs, so I think your idea is orthogonal to its goals. -Brett
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:49 AM Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
Is Buildout forgotten? It's not dead and achieves the same in this regard. It works by flushing out meaningfully-shebanged wrapper scripts with exactly injected sys.path. http://docs.buildout.org/en/latest/ -- Joni Orponen
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 3:29 PM Philip Bergen via Python-ideas < python-ideas@python.org> wrote:
In a word, simplicity. Teaching newcomers about virtual environments is a stumbling block, but so if when they accidentally pollute their global installation when they get started.PEP 582 is an attempt to handle the simple case nicely.
Surprise, potential security implications, other languages that have a similar solution don't do that.
2: It feels to me like there is a larger story here about sprucing up PYTHONPATH.
It's been a common theme that when people read PEP 582 they think there's a larger story, so you're not alone. :)
PEP 582 isn't about sharing installs, so I think your idea is orthogonal to its goals. -Brett
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:49 AM Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
Is Buildout forgotten? It's not dead and achieves the same in this regard. It works by flushing out meaningfully-shebanged wrapper scripts with exactly injected sys.path. http://docs.buildout.org/en/latest/ -- Joni Orponen
participants (3)
-
Brett Cannon -
Joni Orponen -
Philip Bergen