Mailman 3 pipenv and pip - Distutils-SIG

newer
Accessing extras during install...

pipenv and pip

Chris Jerdonek

20 Aug 2018 20 Aug '18

12:11 p.m.

Hi, Can someone explain to me the relationship between pipenv and pip, from the perspective of pipenv's maintainers? For example, does pipenv currently reimplement anything that pip tries to do, or does it simply call out to pip through the CLI or through its internal API's? Does it have any preferences or future plans in this regard? How about upstreaming to pip fixes or things that would help pipenv? I've been contributing to pip more lately, and I had a look at pipenv's repository for the first time today. https://github.com/pypa/pipenv Given that pip's code was recently made internal, I was a bit surprised to see that pipenv vendors and patches pip: https://github.com/pypa/pipenv/tree/master/pipenv/patched/notpip Before I had always assumed that pipenv used pip's CLI (because that's what pip says you should do). I also noticed that some bugs in pipenv's tracker seem closely related to pip's behavior, but I don't recall seeing any bugs or PR's in pip's tracker reported from pipenv maintainers. Without knowing a whole lot more than what I've stated, one concern I have is around fragmentation, duplication of work, and repeating mistakes (or introducing new ones) if a lot of work is going into pipenv without coordinating with pip. Is this in any way similar to the beginning of what happened with distutils, setuptools, and distribute that we are still recovering from? --Chris

Show replies by date

Dan Ryan

20 Aug 20 Aug

1:21 p.m.

Sure I can grab that— we patch pip because we use some internals to handle resolution and we have some bugs around that currently. They aren’t upstreamed because they aren’t actually present in pip, only in pipenv. Pipenv crosses back and forth across the virtualenv boundary during the process. Pipenv relies on piptools and vendors a patched version of pip to ensure consistency as well as to provide a few hacks around querying the index. We do have a bit of reimplementation around some kinds of logic, with the largest overlap being in parsing of requirements. As we handle some resolution, which isn’t really something pip does, there is no cli interface to achieve this. I maintain a library (as of last week) which provides compatibility shims between pip versions 8-current. It is a good idea to use the cli, but we already spend enough resources forking subprocesses into the background that it is a lot more efficient to use the internals, which I track quite closely. The preference toward cli interaction is largely to allow internal api breakage which we don’t mind. For the most part, we have open channels of communication as necessary. We rely as heavily as we can on pip, packaging, and setuptools to connect the dots, retrieve package info, etc. Dan Ryan // pipenv maintainer gh: @techalchemy

...

On Aug 20, 2018, at 2:41 AM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:

Hi,

Can someone explain to me the relationship between pipenv and pip, from the perspective of pipenv's maintainers?

For example, does pipenv currently reimplement anything that pip tries to do, or does it simply call out to pip through the CLI or through its internal API's? Does it have any preferences or future plans in this regard? How about upstreaming to pip fixes or things that would help pipenv?

I've been contributing to pip more lately, and I had a look at pipenv's repository for the first time today. https://github.com/pypa/pipenv

Given that pip's code was recently made internal, I was a bit surprised to see that pipenv vendors and patches pip: https://github.com/pypa/pipenv/tree/master/pipenv/patched/notpip Before I had always assumed that pipenv used pip's CLI (because that's what pip says you should do).

I also noticed that some bugs in pipenv's tracker seem closely related to pip's behavior, but I don't recall seeing any bugs or PR's in pip's tracker reported from pipenv maintainers.

Without knowing a whole lot more than what I've stated, one concern I have is around fragmentation, duplication of work, and repeating mistakes (or introducing new ones) if a lot of work is going into pipenv without coordinating with pip. Is this in any way similar to the beginning of what happened with distutils, setuptools, and distribute that we are still recovering from?

--Chris -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/2...

Chris Jerdonek

2:02 p.m.

Thanks. Is the state of affairs as you described them what you're planning for the future as well, or do you anticipate any changes worthy of note? Also, are any of the bugs filed in pipenv's tracker due to bugs or rough spots in pip -- is there a way to find those, like by using a label? It would be good to be able to know about those so pip can improve and become more useful. It doesn't seem like any bugs have been filed in pip's tracker in the past year by any of pipenv's top contributors. That seems a bit surprising to me given pipenv's heavy reliance on pip (together with the fact that I know pip has its share of issues), or is there another way you have of communicating regarding things that interconnect with pip? Thanks, --Chris On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:51 AM, Dan Ryan wrote:

...

Sure I can grab that— we patch pip because we use some internals to handle resolution and we have some bugs around that currently. They aren’t upstreamed because they aren’t actually present in pip, only in pipenv. Pipenv crosses back and forth across the virtualenv boundary during the process. Pipenv relies on piptools and vendors a patched version of pip to ensure consistency as well as to provide a few hacks around querying the index. We do have a bit of reimplementation around some kinds of logic, with the largest overlap being in parsing of requirements.

As we handle some resolution, which isn’t really something pip does, there is no cli interface to achieve this. I maintain a library (as of last week) which provides compatibility shims between pip versions 8-current. It is a good idea to use the cli, but we already spend enough resources forking subprocesses into the background that it is a lot more efficient to use the internals, which I track quite closely. The preference toward cli interaction is largely to allow internal api breakage which we don’t mind.

For the most part, we have open channels of communication as necessary. We rely as heavily as we can on pip, packaging, and setuptools to connect the dots, retrieve package info, etc.

Dan Ryan // pipenv maintainer gh: @techalchemy

...
On Aug 20, 2018, at 2:41 AM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:

Hi,

Can someone explain to me the relationship between pipenv and pip, from the perspective of pipenv's maintainers?

For example, does pipenv currently reimplement anything that pip tries to do, or does it simply call out to pip through the CLI or through its internal API's? Does it have any preferences or future plans in this regard? How about upstreaming to pip fixes or things that would help pipenv?

I've been contributing to pip more lately, and I had a look at pipenv's repository for the first time today. https://github.com/pypa/pipenv

Given that pip's code was recently made internal, I was a bit surprised to see that pipenv vendors and patches pip: https://github.com/pypa/pipenv/tree/master/pipenv/patched/notpip Before I had always assumed that pipenv used pip's CLI (because that's what pip says you should do).

I also noticed that some bugs in pipenv's tracker seem closely related to pip's behavior, but I don't recall seeing any bugs or PR's in pip's tracker reported from pipenv maintainers.

Without knowing a whole lot more than what I've stated, one concern I have is around fragmentation, duplication of work, and repeating mistakes (or introducing new ones) if a lot of work is going into pipenv without coordinating with pip. Is this in any way similar to the beginning of what happened with distutils, setuptools, and distribute that we are still recovering from?

--Chris -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/2...

Wes Turner

3:22 p.m.

What stable API would be worth maintaining in pip for others to use? "[Distutils] Announcement: Pip 10 is coming, and will move all internal APIs" https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/pypa-dev/JVTfS6ZdAuM On Monday, August 20, 2018, Chris Jerdonek wrote:

...

Thanks. Is the state of affairs as you described them what you're planning for the future as well, or do you anticipate any changes worthy of note?

Also, are any of the bugs filed in pipenv's tracker due to bugs or rough spots in pip -- is there a way to find those, like by using a label? It would be good to be able to know about those so pip can improve and become more useful. It doesn't seem like any bugs have been filed in pip's tracker in the past year by any of pipenv's top contributors. That seems a bit surprising to me given pipenv's heavy reliance on pip (together with the fact that I know pip has its share of issues), or is there another way you have of communicating regarding things that interconnect with pip?

Label ideas? - 'stable-api' - Who is offering to maintain a stable API in/with/for pip and the Python community ad infinitum?

...

Thanks, --Chris

...
Sure I can grab that— we patch pip because we use some internals to handle resolution and we have some bugs around that currently. They aren’t upstreamed because they aren’t actually present in pip, only in pipenv. Pipenv crosses back and forth across the virtualenv boundary during the

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:51 AM, Dan Ryan wrote: process. Pipenv relies on piptools and vendors a patched version of pip to ensure consistency as well as to provide a few hacks around querying the index. We do have a bit of reimplementation around some kinds of logic, with the largest overlap being in parsing of requirements.

...
As we handle some resolution, which isn’t really something pip does,

there is no cli interface to achieve this. I maintain a library (as of last week) which provides compatibility shims between pip versions 8-current. It is a good idea to use the cli, but we already spend enough resources forking subprocesses into the background that it is a lot more efficient to use the internals, which I track quite closely. The preference toward cli interaction is largely to allow internal api breakage which we don’t mind.

What is the URL of this library of which you are speaking?

...

...
For the most part, we have open channels of communication as necessary.

We rely as heavily as we can on pip, packaging, and setuptools to connect the dots, retrieve package info, etc.

An issue label and something like a PEP would likely survive the ravages of 10 years of tools tooling around with community packaging commitments.

...

...
Dan Ryan // pipenv maintainer gh: @techalchemy

...
On Aug 20, 2018, at 2:41 AM, Chris Jerdonek

wrote:

...
...
Hi,

Can someone explain to me the relationship between pipenv and pip, from the perspective of pipenv's maintainers?

For example, does pipenv currently reimplement anything that pip tries to do, or does it simply call out to pip through the CLI or through its internal API's? Does it have any preferences or future plans in this regard? How about upstreaming to pip fixes or things that would help pipenv?

I've been contributing to pip more lately, and I had a look at pipenv's repository for the first time today. https://github.com/pypa/pipenv

Given that pip's code was recently made internal, I was a bit surprised to see that pipenv vendors and patches pip: https://github.com/pypa/pipenv/tree/master/pipenv/patched/notpip Before I had always assumed that pipenv used pip's CLI (because that's what pip says you should do).

I also noticed that some bugs in pipenv's tracker seem closely related to pip's behavior, but I don't recall seeing any bugs or PR's in pip's tracker reported from pipenv maintainers.

Without knowing a whole lot more than what I've stated, one concern I have is around fragmentation, duplication of work, and repeating mistakes (or introducing new ones) if a lot of work is going into pipenv without coordinating with pip. Is this in any way similar to the beginning of what happened with distutils, setuptools, and distribute that we are still recovering from?

--Chris -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/

archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/ 2QECNWSHNEW7UBB24M2K5BISYJY7GMZF/ -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/ archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/ 2AYIJ3KTB2QJRF3BGV446DXAJGCFVQ5R/

Paul Moore

4:17 p.m.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 at 10:54, Wes Turner wrote:

...

What stable API would be worth maintaining in pip for others to use?

That's probably the sort of question that can only be usefully answered by projects like pipenv identifying the functionality they need and proposing something. Which is of course one of the reasons we (the pip devs) advise against "just using pip's internals", because it means we never get that information in any useful form.

...

Who is offering to maintain a stable API in/with/for pip and the Python community ad infinitum?

That's the crux of the problem - basically the answer is "no-one". What we advocate is for generally useful functionality to be split out into standalone libraries, and then pip, as well as other consumers, can use those libraries. We already have that with the packaging library and the script wrappers (part of distlib). The new resolver is being developed as a standalone library (zazo) as is the PEP 517 hook wrapper functionality (pep517). There's no reason this model couldn't work in other areas. (But even then, the question "who's offering to write these libraries" still applies :-()

...

...
...
As we handle some resolution, which isn’t really something pip does, there is no cli interface to achieve this. I maintain a library (as of last week) which provides compatibility shims between pip versions 8-current. It is a good idea to use the cli, but we already spend enough resources forking subprocesses into the background that it is a lot more efficient to use the internals, which I track quite closely. The preference toward cli interaction is largely to allow internal api breakage which we don’t mind.

What is the URL of this library of which you are speaking?

I know "security by obscurity" doesn't work, but I'm happier if details of this library *aren't* widely known - it's not something I'd want to encourage people using, nor is it supported by pip, as it's basically a direct interface into pip's internal functions, papering over the name changes that we did in pip 10 specifically to dissuade people from doing this. Paul

Wes Turner

4:55 p.m.

On Monday, August 20, 2018, Paul Moore wrote:

...

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 at 10:54, Wes Turner wrote:

...
What stable API would be worth maintaining in pip for others to use?

That's probably the sort of question that can only be usefully answered by projects like pipenv identifying the functionality they need and proposing something. Which is of course one of the reasons we (the pip devs) advise against "just using pip's internals", because it means we never get that information in any useful form.

...
Who is offering to maintain a stable API in/with/for pip and the Python community ad infinitum?

That's the crux of the problem - basically the answer is "no-one". What we advocate is for generally useful functionality to be split out into standalone libraries, and then pip, as well as other consumers, can use those libraries. We already have that with the packaging library and the script wrappers (part of distlib). The new resolver is being developed as a standalone library (zazo) as is the PEP 517 hook wrapper functionality (pep517). There's no reason this model couldn't work in other areas. (But even then, the question "who's offering to write these libraries" still applies :-()

Thanks!

...

...
...
...
As we handle some resolution, which isn’t really something pip does, there is no cli interface to achieve this. I maintain a library (as of last week) which provides compatibility shims between pip versions 8-current. It is a good idea to use the cli, but we already spend enough resources forking subprocesses into the background that it is a lot more efficient to use the internals, which I track quite closely. The preference toward cli interaction is largely to allow internal api breakage which we don’t mind.

What is the URL of this library of which you are speaking?

I know "security by obscurity" doesn't work, but I'm happier if details of this library *aren't* widely known - it's not something I'd want to encourage people using, nor is it supported by pip, as it's basically a direct interface into pip's internal functions, papering over the name changes that we did in pip 10 specifically to dissuade people from doing this.

If someone was committing to identifying useful API methods, parameters, and return values; writing a ~PEP; implementing said API; and maintaining backwards compatible shims for some reason; would something like `pip.api` be an appropriate namespace? (now that we're on version 18 with a faster release cycle)?

...

Paul

Paul Moore

5:45 p.m.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 at 12:25, Wes Turner wrote:

...

On Monday, August 20, 2018, Paul Moore wrote:

...

...
I know "security by obscurity" doesn't work, but I'm happier if details of this library *aren't* widely known - it's not something I'd want to encourage people using, nor is it supported by pip, as it's basically a direct interface into pip's internal functions, papering over the name changes that we did in pip 10 specifically to dissuade people from doing this.

If someone was committing to identifying useful API methods, parameters, and return values; writing a ~PEP; implementing said API; and maintaining backwards compatible shims for some reason; would something like `pip.api` be an appropriate namespace? (now that we're on version 18 with a faster release cycle)?

I'm not quite sure I know what you mean here. The key point is that pip 18.0 might have an internal function pip._internal.xxx, and in pip 18.1 there's no such function, and the functionality doesn't even exist any more. How would a 3rd party project maintain backwards compatible shims in the face of that? Agreed it's not likely in practice - but we're not going to guarantee it. To be honest I don't see the point of discussing pip's internal API. It's just that - internal. I'd rather discuss useful (general) packaging libraries, that tools can build on - pip can vendor those and act as (just) another consumer, rather than getting into debates about support and internal APIs. Paul

Wes Turner

5:51 p.m.

Something as simple as reading a requirements.txt file into JSON must either reimplement or wrongly import from pip._internal. Anyways, Tool authors reimplementing in particular the requirements.txt functionality shouldn't be necessary. On Monday, August 20, 2018, Paul Moore wrote:

...

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 at 12:25, Wes Turner wrote:

...
On Monday, August 20, 2018, Paul Moore wrote:

...
...
I know "security by obscurity" doesn't work, but I'm happier if details of this library *aren't* widely known - it's not something I'd want to encourage people using, nor is it supported by pip, as it's basically a direct interface into pip's internal functions, papering over the name changes that we did in pip 10 specifically to dissuade people from doing this.

If someone was committing to identifying useful API methods, parameters, and return values; writing a ~PEP; implementing said API; and maintaining backwards compatible shims for some reason; would something like `pip.api` be an appropriate namespace? (now that we're on version 18 with a faster release cycle)?

I'm not quite sure I know what you mean here. The key point is that pip 18.0 might have an internal function pip._internal.xxx, and in pip 18.1 there's no such function, and the functionality doesn't even exist any more. How would a 3rd party project maintain backwards compatible shims in the face of that? Agreed it's not likely in practice - but we're not going to guarantee it.

To be honest I don't see the point of discussing pip's internal API. It's just that - internal. I'd rather discuss useful (general) packaging libraries, that tools can build on - pip can vendor those and act as (just) another consumer, rather than getting into debates about support and internal APIs.

Paul

Paul Moore

6:15 p.m.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 at 13:21, Wes Turner wrote:

...

Something as simple as reading a requirements.txt file into JSON must either reimplement or wrongly import from pip._internal.

Or copy pip's code and maintain it locally...

...

Anyways, Tool authors reimplementing in particular the requirements.txt functionality shouldn't be necessary.

Agreed. Maybe someone should write a package to handle requirements.txt reading API. They could copy the code from pip with our blessing, and we'd happily vendor them and use their code. As you can see, it's very easy to suggest that someone *else* should do something. The problem is finding someone who has both the interest in solving the problem, and the time to do so. The "why doesn't pip have a stable API" question is very much about the fact that we don't have the *resources* to support one, not about any dislike of programmatic APIs... Paul

Wayne Werner

6:46 p.m.

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 7:45 AM Paul Moore wrote:

...

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 at 13:21, Wes Turner wrote:

...
Something as simple as reading a requirements.txt file into JSON must

either reimplement or wrongly import from pip._internal.

Or copy pip's code and maintain it locally...

...
Anyways, Tool authors reimplementing in particular the requirements.txt functionality shouldn't be necessary.

Agreed. Maybe someone should write a package to handle requirements.txt reading API.

Or as pipenv does, abort that issue entirely in favor of a toml file because that's the future, right? :) -W

...

Dan Ryan

7:26 p.m.

I actually maintain a separate library for parsing requirements which relies mainly on packaging and which provides a backing implementation for moving between requirements files and Pipfile format. It relies on some pip internals (InstallRequirement specifically) for avoiding rework. As of recently it also includes some resolution functionality. I didn’t include a link to the pip shims library because Paul et. al. aren’t happy we are using this stuff to begin with, which I get. However it is also a good representation of things we have needed in multiple projects associated with pipenv (I reimplemented them in piptools and they were picked up in at least one additional project as well). In pipenvs case specifically we wind up installing packages from user input or from a structured file, in either case we want it to succeed. It would be kind of silly to start from point 0 and pretend there is no code behind pip as we construct dependency graphs. We run into some risk of rework on the resolver front. We just finished a stateful, forward looking, backtracking resolver (we checked in with Pradyun but he is quite busy). Dan Ryan // pipenv maintainer gh: @techalchemy

...

On Aug 20, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Wayne Werner wrote:

...
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 7:45 AM Paul Moore wrote: On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 at 13:21, Wes Turner wrote:

...
Something as simple as reading a requirements.txt file into JSON must either reimplement or wrongly import from pip._internal.

Or copy pip's code and maintain it locally...

...
Anyways, Tool authors reimplementing in particular the requirements.txt functionality shouldn't be necessary.

Agreed. Maybe someone should write a package to handle requirements.txt reading API.

Or as pipenv does, abort that issue entirely in favor of a toml file because that's the future, right? :)

-W -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/F...

Dan Ryan

7:39 p.m.

How would I (said library) maintain compatibility? I’m pretty clever. The shim library doesn’t actually do anything besides provide import paths. If I shim something that didn’t exist, it shims None for any pip versions where it doesn’t exist. So for example if you are running pip 9 and you import RequirementTracker from the shims library you just import None Dan Ryan // pipenv maintainer gh: @techalchemy

...

On Aug 20, 2018, at 8:15 AM, Paul Moore wrote:

...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 at 12:25, Wes Turner wrote:

On Monday, August 20, 2018, Paul Moore wrote:

...
...
I know "security by obscurity" doesn't work, but I'm happier if details of this library *aren't* widely known - it's not something I'd want to encourage people using, nor is it supported by pip, as it's basically a direct interface into pip's internal functions, papering over the name changes that we did in pip 10 specifically to dissuade people from doing this.

If someone was committing to identifying useful API methods, parameters, and return values; writing a ~PEP; implementing said API; and maintaining backwards compatible shims for some reason; would something like `pip.api` be an appropriate namespace? (now that we're on version 18 with a faster release cycle)?

I'm not quite sure I know what you mean here. The key point is that pip 18.0 might have an internal function pip._internal.xxx, and in pip 18.1 there's no such function, and the functionality doesn't even exist any more. How would a 3rd party project maintain backwards compatible shims in the face of that? Agreed it's not likely in practice - but we're not going to guarantee it.

To be honest I don't see the point of discussing pip's internal API. It's just that - internal. I'd rather discuss useful (general) packaging libraries, that tools can build on - pip can vendor those and act as (just) another consumer, rather than getting into debates about support and internal APIs.

Paul -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/7...

Chris Jerdonek

11:28 p.m.

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 2:52 AM Wes Turner wrote:

...

What stable API would be worth maintaining in pip for others to use?

Just to be clear, nothing in my comments was meant to suggest maintaining a stable API. There are other kinds of things pip could do to make it easier for pipenv that don’t involve that. —Chris

...

"[Distutils] Announcement: Pip 10 is coming, and will move all internal APIs" https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/pypa-dev/JVTfS6ZdAuM

On Monday, August 20, 2018, Chris Jerdonek wrote:

...
Thanks. Is the state of affairs as you described them what you're planning for the future as well, or do you anticipate any changes worthy of note?

Also, are any of the bugs filed in pipenv's tracker due to bugs or rough spots in pip -- is there a way to find those, like by using a label? It would be good to be able to know about those so pip can improve and become more useful. It doesn't seem like any bugs have been filed in pip's tracker in the past year by any of pipenv's top contributors. That seems a bit surprising to me given pipenv's heavy reliance on pip (together with the fact that I know pip has its share of issues), or is there another way you have of communicating regarding things that interconnect with pip?

Label ideas? - 'stable-api' -

Who is offering to maintain a stable API in/with/for pip and the Python community ad infinitum?

...
Thanks, --Chris

...
Sure I can grab that— we patch pip because we use some internals to handle resolution and we have some bugs around that currently. They aren’t upstreamed because they aren’t actually present in pip, only in pipenv. Pipenv crosses back and forth across the virtualenv boundary during the

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:51 AM, Dan Ryan wrote: process. Pipenv relies on piptools and vendors a patched version of pip to ensure consistency as well as to provide a few hacks around querying the index. We do have a bit of reimplementation around some kinds of logic, with the largest overlap being in parsing of requirements.

...
As we handle some resolution, which isn’t really something pip does,

there is no cli interface to achieve this. I maintain a library (as of last week) which provides compatibility shims between pip versions 8-current. It is a good idea to use the cli, but we already spend enough resources forking subprocesses into the background that it is a lot more efficient to use the internals, which I track quite closely. The preference toward cli interaction is largely to allow internal api breakage which we don’t mind.

What is the URL of this library of which you are speaking?

...
...
For the most part, we have open channels of communication as necessary.

We rely as heavily as we can on pip, packaging, and setuptools to connect the dots, retrieve package info, etc.

An issue label and something like a PEP would likely survive the ravages of 10 years of tools tooling around with community packaging commitments.

...
...
Dan Ryan // pipenv maintainer gh: @techalchemy

...
On Aug 20, 2018, at 2:41 AM, Chris Jerdonek

wrote:

...
...
Hi,

Can someone explain to me the relationship between pipenv and pip, from the perspective of pipenv's maintainers?

For example, does pipenv currently reimplement anything that pip tries to do, or does it simply call out to pip through the CLI or through its internal API's? Does it have any preferences or future plans in this regard? How about upstreaming to pip fixes or things that would help pipenv?

I've been contributing to pip more lately, and I had a look at pipenv's repository for the first time today. https://github.com/pypa/pipenv

Given that pip's code was recently made internal, I was a bit surprised to see that pipenv vendors and patches pip: https://github.com/pypa/pipenv/tree/master/pipenv/patched/notpip Before I had always assumed that pipenv used pip's CLI (because that's what pip says you should do).

I also noticed that some bugs in pipenv's tracker seem closely related to pip's behavior, but I don't recall seeing any bugs or PR's in pip's tracker reported from pipenv maintainers.

Without knowing a whole lot more than what I've stated, one concern I have is around fragmentation, duplication of work, and repeating mistakes (or introducing new ones) if a lot of work is going into pipenv without coordinating with pip. Is this in any way similar to the beginning of what happened with distutils, setuptools, and distribute that we are still recovering from?

--Chris -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at

https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/2... -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/

Message archived at

...
https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/2...

Dan Ryan

7:34 p.m.

The truth is that it’s basically impossible to gauge bugs in pip vs bugs in our patches to it which are often a lot more likely — reproductions of edge cases can be impossible but there are specific things I know we broke (like parsing certain kinds of extras, previously) — mostly bugs land in pips issue tracker before we report them or we will direct people there. We have like 2 active maintainers and we are maintaining like 15 pipenv related projects so we normally just point people at pip rather than file an issue. I am usually on irc as well if needed, and I often ask for clarification there Dan Ryan // pipenv maintainer gh: @techalchemy

...

On Aug 20, 2018, at 4:32 AM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:

Thanks. Is the state of affairs as you described them what you're planning for the future as well, or do you anticipate any changes worthy of note?

Also, are any of the bugs filed in pipenv's tracker due to bugs or rough spots in pip -- is there a way to find those, like by using a label? It would be good to be able to know about those so pip can improve and become more useful. It doesn't seem like any bugs have been filed in pip's tracker in the past year by any of pipenv's top contributors. That seems a bit surprising to me given pipenv's heavy reliance on pip (together with the fact that I know pip has its share of issues), or is there another way you have of communicating regarding things that interconnect with pip?

Thanks, --Chris

...
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:51 AM, Dan Ryan wrote: Sure I can grab that— we patch pip because we use some internals to handle resolution and we have some bugs around that currently. They aren’t upstreamed because they aren’t actually present in pip, only in pipenv. Pipenv crosses back and forth across the virtualenv boundary during the process. Pipenv relies on piptools and vendors a patched version of pip to ensure consistency as well as to provide a few hacks around querying the index. We do have a bit of reimplementation around some kinds of logic, with the largest overlap being in parsing of requirements.

As we handle some resolution, which isn’t really something pip does, there is no cli interface to achieve this. I maintain a library (as of last week) which provides compatibility shims between pip versions 8-current. It is a good idea to use the cli, but we already spend enough resources forking subprocesses into the background that it is a lot more efficient to use the internals, which I track quite closely. The preference toward cli interaction is largely to allow internal api breakage which we don’t mind.

For the most part, we have open channels of communication as necessary. We rely as heavily as we can on pip, packaging, and setuptools to connect the dots, retrieve package info, etc.

Dan Ryan // pipenv maintainer gh: @techalchemy

...
On Aug 20, 2018, at 2:41 AM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:

Hi,

Can someone explain to me the relationship between pipenv and pip, from the perspective of pipenv's maintainers?

For example, does pipenv currently reimplement anything that pip tries to do, or does it simply call out to pip through the CLI or through its internal API's? Does it have any preferences or future plans in this regard? How about upstreaming to pip fixes or things that would help pipenv?

I've been contributing to pip more lately, and I had a look at pipenv's repository for the first time today. https://github.com/pypa/pipenv

Given that pip's code was recently made internal, I was a bit surprised to see that pipenv vendors and patches pip: https://github.com/pypa/pipenv/tree/master/pipenv/patched/notpip Before I had always assumed that pipenv used pip's CLI (because that's what pip says you should do).

I also noticed that some bugs in pipenv's tracker seem closely related to pip's behavior, but I don't recall seeing any bugs or PR's in pip's tracker reported from pipenv maintainers.

Without knowing a whole lot more than what I've stated, one concern I have is around fragmentation, duplication of work, and repeating mistakes (or introducing new ones) if a lot of work is going into pipenv without coordinating with pip. Is this in any way similar to the beginning of what happened with distutils, setuptools, and distribute that we are still recovering from?

--Chris -- Distutils-SIG mailing list -- distutils-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to distutils-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mm3/mailman3/lists/distutils-sig.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/mm3/archives/list/distutils-sig@python.org/message/2...

2070

Age (days ago)

2070

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

13 comments

5 participants

participants (5)

Chris Jerdonek
Dan Ryan
Paul Moore
Wayne Werner
Wes Turner

pipenv and pip

tags

participants (5)