[Distutils] [Python-Dev] PEP 365 (Adding the pkg_resources module)
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Mon Mar 17 19:45:40 CET 2008
At 12:59 PM 3/17/2008 -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Phillip J. Eby
><pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> > At 12:17 PM 3/17/2008 -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > >There will be no egg support in the standard library.
> > Are there any qualifications on that statement, or is this in the
> > same category as "from __future__ import braces"?
>IIUC eggs are a method of package management that includes support for
>dependencies, multiple versions, and C extensions in zip files, as
>well as conventions for naming these and for encoding metadata (e.g.
>how to find out the version or the dependencies). This whole set of
>conventions is IMO too much to include into the stdlib ATM -- if only
>because it has proved controversial in the past. Maybe a few years
>from now it will be no longer controversial and then my objections
So, does this mean that the bootstrap tool must not use eggs? That
seems a little bit odd, in that setuptools will at least need its
.egg-info directory to get installed, and all of the people who'll be
using this initially will be using it precisely in order to have
support for eggs...
So, it might be simpler all around to just clear up the
"controversy". To the best of my recollection, only MAL and MvL have
ever objected on Python-Dev to the idea of supporting eggs.
Note: I'm specifically segregating "egg support" from the topic of
including setuptools or easy_install in the stdlib directly. There
are many legitimate reservations and open questions about the latter,
including availability of volunteer support, choice of defaults,
whether to replace distutils with setuptools, etc. etc. I recognize
and respect the validity of those issues, which is precisely why I
withdrew setuptools from inclusion in Python 2.5.
However, regarding support for eggs, my understanding is that there
were only two objections to eggs -- even at the time of the 2.5
setuptools discussions. And even though MvL objects to the idea of
eggs in *principle*, I didn't read his recent posts as objecting to
having the bootstrap tool download and install eggs in
*practice*. (Although I hope he will clarify that stance one way or
That leaves MAL, whose objections to PEP 365 centered on the API (he
said he was "+1 on the concepts being added to the stdlib, -1 on
adding the module in its current state"). Among other concerns, he
wanted pkg_resources to be split into pkgutil and a new "egglib"
module. I don't have a problem with this in principle, if there were
a pkg_resources module that reconstituted the merged API. (But there
are some practical problems with that approach, such as trying to
split namespace package support between two theoretically-unrelated modules.)
I would guess, however, that MAL's issues with the pkg_resources API
would not apply to a bootstrap module whose sole purpose was to
download eggs and put them on sys.path. Or, perhaps he would object
*more*, I don't know. We could certainly ask him, though. :)
So, was there anyone else you were counting towards
"controversy"? The only other person I recall objecting to
setuptools in any way on Python-Dev was effbot, and IIUC his
objections were practical/administrative re: supporting easy_install
and setuptools, not to the idea of .egg support in general.
In summary, I think the controversy on Python-Dev regarding .egg
support has actually been over for some time now.
More information about the Distutils-SIG