[Distutils] What does it mean for Python to "bundle pip"?

[Steve Dower]

Brett Cannon wrote:
> Steve Dower wrote:
>> Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>>> Paul wrote:
>>>> Given that the installer includes the py.exe launcher, if you leave the
>>>> defaults, then at a command prompt "python" doesn't work. But that's fine,
>>>> because "py" does. And if you have multiple versions of Python installed, you
>>>> don't *want* python on PATH, because then you have to manage your PATH. Why
>>>> bother when "py -2.7" or "py -3.3" does what you want with no path management?
>>>> Once you want any *other* executables, though, you have to deal with PATH
>>>> (especially in the multiple Pythons case). That is a new issue, and one that
>>>> hasn't been thought through yet, and we don't have a good solution.
>>>
>>> From a user perspective I think that 'py -3.4 -m pip ...' is an improvement as
>>> it means I can easily install or upgrade for a particular python installation (I
>>> tend to have a few). There's no need to put Scripts on PATH just to run pip. I
>>> think this should be the recommended invocation for Windows users.
>> Crazy idea:
>> 
>>     py install <other args>
>> (or 'py --install ...', but I think 'py install' is currently invalid and could be used?)
>> 
>> which the launcher executes identically to:
>> 
>>     py -m pip install <other args>
>> 
>> (Implicitly extended to other relevant commands... I'm not proposing a complete list.)
>> 
>> Pros:
>> * allows implicit bootstrapping on first use (from a bundled pip, IMO, in case no network is available)
> 
> Nick already killed this idea. Richard's original PEP proposed this and the idea eventually was shot down.

Are you referring to the whole idea or just the implicit bootstrap? I followed the discussions about the latter, and it seemed that the problem was trying to bootstrap pip using pip.

This is different (bootstrap pip from py) and I believe it does not have the same issues.

> -Brett